Is the Taliban off the Obama hit-list?

Delusional: U.S. military will no longer target Taliban – even though they just murdered 3 American contractors from the files of Colonel Allen B. West

Visit the Allen B. West Website

Last week we shared the story about the Taliban claiming responsibility for the terrorist attack that killed three American contractors. The Americans, working as contractors for the North Carolina-based Praetorian Standards Inc., were shot and killed, and another was wounded by a member of the Afghan security forces — actually a Taliban infiltrator. And we thought combat operations were ended.

Now, what do you think the Obama administration had to say about the “aggression conducted by armed insurgents?”

Naturally, as reported by CNS News, “State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki declined on Friday to directly say whether the murder of three U.S. civilians at the airport in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Thursday—which the Taliban claimed responsibility for–was an act of terrorism.”

“Obviously any attack that kills contractors, that kills individuals who are working there in harm’s way, is horrific and a tragedy but I’m not going to put new labels on it today. She also said: “We see a difference between Taliban and ISIL.”

Hey, I know the difference: one group is regional to Afghanistan and Pakistan and mostly speaks Pashtun; the other is global and speaks a variety of languages. However, they are both Islamic terrorists, savage and barbaric in their actions, something seemingly lost on Jen Psaki.

And for the Islamapologists who refute the idea that this current conflagration has anything to do with religion — well, some beg to differ, namely, the enemy.

“As reported by the Washington Post, Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said that the killer was Ihsanullah bin Mullah Rahmatulla, who had infiltrated Afghan security forces. “He managed yesterday evening to attain his goal and opened fire with his rifle on a group of American occupiers,” Mujahid said, as quoted in the Post.

The attacker was then killed. “The martyr was able to successfully defend his religion … and the glory of his country, and by giving himself away as a sacrifice, he cast a number of the occupying disbelievers into the abyss of hell,” said the Taliban spokesman, according to the Post.”

“At last Friday’s State Department press briefing, CNS News asked: “The Taliban has taken credit for murdering three American civilian contractors at the Kabul airport yesterday. Were those murders an act of terrorism?”

“Well, one, I think the Department of Defense has spoken to this a bit so I’d point you to their comments,” said Psaki. “There was a shooting at the North Kabul International Airport Complex yesterday. We’ve seen reports that the Taliban have claimed responsibility.

There’s an investigation going on into this incident. Obviously, any attack that kills contractors, that kills individuals who are working there in harm’s way, is horrific and a tragedy but I’m not going to put new labels on it today.”

“AP Reporter Matt Lee later returned to the question asking Psaki: “I’m just not sure why you wouldn’t just say of course it’s a terrorist attack.” “It’s an act of terror when American citizens are, individuals, are killed, like contractors, absolutely,”

Psaki said. Later, Lee asked her: “Is there anything that has been uncovered in this investigation into what happened at the Kabul Airport to suggest that it was not in fact a terrorist attack?” “I was not suggesting that,” said Psaki, “but I think we have a responsibility as the U.S. government to let processes see themselves out and that’s what we’re doing.”

Ok, what processes? This is why we have an administration that is simply incapable of defending the American people against the Islamic terrorist threat. They’ve sought to reduce this enemy into some complex wire diagram when the entire time you have a simplistic linear equation.

Here are two examples:

“A reported asked Psaki, “It was an Afghan policeman who did this, obviously working for the Taliban. Are you concerned that this may happen time and time again?” Psaki responded, “I am not going to address your question.”

“Psaki continued, explaining that President Obama had made a determination not to target “belligerents” in Afghanistan because they were members of the Taliban.

She also said:

“Also, back when we made our decision about our combat role in Afghanistan the president talked about how U.S. forces would continue to target the remnants of al-Qaida in Afghanistan, but the U.S. military forces will no longer target belligerents solely because they are members of the Taliban.”

So I want you all to understand what this means. Our troops remaining in Afghanistan will not be “targeting” any member of the Taliban. In other words, our men and women will be sitting duck targets who will allow the proliferation of the “armed insurgents.”

What mentality possesses the Obama administration that it can stand and issue such clearly delusional statements? I cannot understand any possible logic in a policy that says we’re not going to fight the enemy who is fighting us?

And recognize this is why President Obama and his ilk see no problem with the release of five senior Taliban leaders – it’s just no big deal. So why are we leaving a residual force in Afghanistan? Why are we exposing our troops to a policy of abject failure, one that refuses to recognize the enemy’s existence, or its intent?

This inane game of redefining the enemy in order to fit your politically-driven ideology does not lend itself to success or victory — and certainly will lead to more deaths of our American troops, and in this case, security contractors.

If I’m al-Qaida — well, just say you’re Taliban and that’s your “get out of jail free card.” Who in the Congress, House or Senate Armed Services Committees has held a hearing to ascertain the viability of such a strategy as Obama is offering in Afghanistan? The Congress has oversight and if anything there should be a hearing requiring the Department of Defense and CENTCOM to explain this strategy.

Jen Psaki’s revelation should be disturbing for every American — unless you’re just a cheerleader for this current administration. This disclosure will not bode well for our residual force left in Afghanistan. Not only has Obama released and reconstituted the enemy and its leadership — he is providing them safe passage and the ability to once again reestablish sanctuary.

After all, it was the Taliban who invited al-Qaida into Afghanistan and provided them comfort and aid in the first place.

And we have a president who is also providing the enemy aid and comfort, as well as material support by way of returning their leadership — a violation of U.S. code.

But oh well. The Patriots won.

__________________________________________

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Iran controls 4 Middle East Capital Cities

Are we toast? Saudi king is dead; ISIS expands; we’re abandoning Yemen and Iran has a missile launcher from the files of Colonel Allen B. West

ImageSat Photo of Iranian Missile Launch Site

On Tuesday evening President Obama stated, “the shadow of crisis has passed and the state of the union is strong” — and of course the blind followers cheered.

Obama also hinted that we had “turned the page” on our fight against terrorism. Remember his unilateral declaration at the National War College that the war on terror had ended — and of course he has commanded that combat operations end in two theaters of operation; Iraq and Afghanistan.

But nothing could shine the light on President Obama’s naiveté (or approval?) more than the fact that just 48 hours after he dismissed the “shadow of crisis,” we are evacuating yet another U.S. Embassy — this time in Yemen.

It’s the same Yemen that just last fall, Obama referred to as the model of his success — just like Vice President Joe Biden once chimed that Iraq would be one of Obama’s greatest successes. When Obama said the shadow of crisis has passed, we had three U.S. Naval warships off the coast of Yemen ready to evacuate the embassy.

And if you’ve forgotten, this is the second U.S. Embassy to be evacuated in less than a year — the other being Libya…y’all remember the swan diving jihadists? This hardly reflects a state of the union that is strong. What it does reflect is a foreign policy of abject failure, resulting from the Obama “pivot” away from the Middle East.

And so now we have the Houthis, whose slogan is “Death to America, Death to Israel” by the way. We reported on them late last year, of course no one cared. Just the same as a year ago this week, when President Obama referred to ISIS as a “jayvee” team. The al-Houthi Islamist group is Shiite and backed by — yep, you got it — that nondescript country called Iran about whom Obama threatened a veto if Congress passed legislation restoring sanctions.

Let me put this all into perspective.

Yemen is home to the most vicious al-Qaida affiliate — yeah I know, they’re decimated and on the run – al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). This is the same group which claimed responsibility for the recent Paris Islamic terrorist attack.

There are now reports that ISIS is expanding into Yemen and as we reported last year, AQAP was seeking a pledge of alliance with ISIS. Yes, the Houthis and al- Qaida don’t exactly get along — but the Houthis are backed by Iran — who we are assisting the fight against ISIS in Iraq, along with their support to Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

And the Obama administration just announced it would send 400 advisors/trainers to Syria. But we’re allowing Iran to pursue its nuclear program, 10,000 centrifuges,– and the Washington Post just gave President Obama three more Pinocchios for his SOTU assertion that Iran’s nuclear program has slowed down. And as you know, Obama threatened to veto congressional action to sanction Iran.

Why should we kinda care? The Yemeni government was pro-American and was aiding in the fight against Islamists within their borders. Now, not only has the Yemeni government been toppled, it has been replaced with the specter of Iranian influence in the vicinity of a chokepoint entering the Red Sea — and not far from Somalia — yet another hot bed of Islamism.

Now, add on top of this hot fudge sundae the fact that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia just passed away. Yemen is the southernmost country on the Arabian Peninsula where chaos now abounds at a time of a transition of leadership in Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis are Sunni and cannot be too happy with the Obama administration’s lack of focus and resolve in the face of Iranian regional hegemonic designs. So what does Saudi Arabia do? In concern for their own existence will the Saudis provide material support to Sunni Islamic terrorists in order to defeat the Iranian-backed Houthis?

And there is another wild card to this equation, as reported by The Algemeiner, “The Israeli satellite imaging company ImageSat released images from Iran revealing a new nuclear development site. The images show what appears to be a new missile launcher that stands 89 feet tall and is capable of launching a nuclear missile to Israel or Europe, according to a report by Israel’s Channel 2.”

“Among the new nuclear developments pictured was a large long-range missile, never seen before in the West. The missile is powerful enough to launch a satellite or a manned spacecraft, the report said.”

Now does this sound like someone with whom we should — or even can – be negotiating?

Ladies and gents, I know some of you may feel, who cares, let them all kill each other. Yes, to a point they will, but the shadow of crisis will not pass that easily.

From Libya extending all the way to Pakistan, and probably beyond, militant Islam has taken root and is exporting its terror and hatred all over the globe. And the policy of this administration is to remain in a state of denial. America sides with Turkey and Qatar. America is releasing Islamic terrorists back onto the battlefield. All the while w’re told move along, nothing here to see.

There’s lots to see, and my greatest concern is that the situation only worsens in these final two years of the Obama reign.

What can we do? Well, first we gotta pray — and I am serious folks. The situation in which we find ourselves is a perfect storm benefiting the Islamic fascists. Not only are they on the move and consolidating their gains while increasing recruitment, we are enabling it by decimating our own military capacity.

We must develop a strong, potent, expeditionary and lethal strike operations-oriented force for the 21st century battlefield. And I’m not talking about any “smart power” or nuanced rhetorical response, but rather a deterrent force capable of deployment and employment in any geographical contingency area.

This is not about nation building. And at some point in time we will have to combat the enemy’s ideology — we must defeat his belief system in order to de-legitimize him. Challenge the enemy and make them own their actions — and stop being Islam-apologists.

The crisis has not passed; it’s right here and all over the globe — heck, there’s even a Russian naval warship docked in Cuba while our state department bureaucrats are there to discuss opening up diplomatic and travel relations.

Can we really say that the state of our union is strong? If you believe that then you’re in a state of delusion. And remember, weakness is enticing.

_____________________________

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

The Obama allegiance: Rise of ISIS ignored

That nagging question about Obama’s allegiance: warnings about ISIS rise were ignored from the files of Colonel Allen B. West

Read the Allen B. West Files

In the last year or so, we’ve seen our military might decimated by budget cuts, pink slips sent to troops while they’re on the battlefield and scores of generals fired, while military leadership deals with how best to integrate LGBT troops, makes sure no one is offended by nativity scenes in the chow hall, and worries about beards. In the meantime, the radical Islamists of ISIS make millions in oil dollars, slaughter, rape and pillage, and grow ever stronger.

When I’m out traveling the country, people often ask me why our Commander-in-Chief would do these things? It’s a nagging question with two possible answers, and neither are palatable.

Nonetheless, stories like this keep begging the question: whose side is he on?

As reported by McClatchyDC.com, “Two months before Mosul and other cities in northern Iraq fell to the Islamic State last June, representatives of a Syrian rebel group called on the new U.S. special envoy for Syria with an outline of a plan to stop the extremists.”

“The group urged the U.S. to shift its focus to eastern Syria, where the Islamic State had emerged from Raqqa and other towns under its control and begun military operations to capture Deir el Zour province. If Islamic State fighters seized the region’s oil and gas resources, they’d gain enough power to destroy the U.S.-backed rebel forces across northern Syria and link the swath of territory they held in Syria to that under their control in Iraq’s restive Anbar province.”

“But the presentation April 17 to special State Department envoy Daniel Rubinstein was stillborn. The plea for immediate financial support for moderate forces in the east, backing for a rebel offensive in Aleppo that would divert Islamic State forces, and relief and medical supplies in the east went unanswered. “Two or three million dollars would have changed the whole thing,” said a rebel official who was at the meeting and spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing a diplomatic exchange. “But we never heard back from them.”

I will be the first to admit skepticism when it comes to “rebel groups” in the Middle East but could it be possible we had early warning about how to stem the rise of ISIS but decided to take no action?

Yes, I would prefer our own forces take on Islamic terrorism where it presents itself — not for nation-building but for precision strike operations with overwhelming power. We don’t have to “outsource” our strategic security objectives, but we must indeed confront the enemy.

I still have a bad taste about our resourcing and trusting the February 17 Martyrs as the security force at the Special Mission Compound in Benghazi. Now, if we had thorough vetting perhaps, but there was a certain window of opportunity that presented itself in Syria, and closed.

How could we have used these “rebel forces” against ISIS early on?

McClatchy advises, “Moderate rebels, despite their battlefield setbacks, have unique assets, such as ground-level intelligence about the locations and movements of the Islamic State, a grasp of local politics and the drive to expel foreign-led forces from their country.”

“But they’ve failed to gain traction with the Obama administration for their plans to fight the terror groups, and recently they’ve had trouble even getting a hearing.”

“The Islamic State didn’t follow quite the path that Syrian rebel officials had predicted, conquering Mosul before Deir el Zour. But the rebels were right that the extremists’ takeover of eastern Syria would speed the demise of the moderates by radicalizing the battlefield, opening the border with Iraq to free movement of arms and manpower, and providing the Islamic State with income from the sale of oil and gas.”

So in one year, since the last State of the Union address, the jayvee team has gone from a terrorist group of some 3,000 to a full-scale army that holds territory and as some recent reports have stated, now resembles an actual functioning state.

The folks on the ground aren’t impressed by Obama’s “dedicated” air operation? “You cannot defeat terrorism by airstrikes alone,” said Hadi al Bahra, the president of the Syrian Opposition Coalition. “There must be a strategy in place.” It should entail “full coordination” between U.S.-led airstrikes and ground forces, military pressure on the Bashar Assad regime and a commitment to enable moderates to establish a governing system in Syria, Bahra said. “They listen,” he said of U.S. officials. “But they do not respond.”

It seems that someone did have a strategy – just maybe not for the right side.

Attempts were made via diplomatic means, but have been completely ignored. “In early May, the then-president of the opposition coalition, Ahmad Jarba, made a presentation about fighting the Islamic State to Michael Lumpkin, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict. Jarba emphasized that the battle for eastern Syria was “important to Iraq as well” and called for “real alliance . . . to fight this common cancer,” according to notes of the meeting made available to McClatchy.”

“We need a strategic partnership to fight terrorism,” he said at the meeting. “We need logistical support and weapons to help the Free Syrian Army fight the Islamic State on the Iraqi border as well.” The Free Syrian Army is an umbrella group of moderate forces fighting the Assad regime. Lumpkin replied that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was supportive of their efforts against the Syrian regime and al-Qaida, and predicted there would be many more meetings “as we work together to end this challenge to us both,” according to the visitors’ notes.”

But SecDef Chuck Hagel is basically a non-entity now.

“The former chief of staff of the Free Syrian Army – a post stripped of most power because the U.S. disburses covert aid to individual rebel commanders rather than through a general staff – said he’d taken maps and a five-page outline of the first phase of a strategic plan with him, as well as a separate file for the battle against the Syrian regime. “But no one asked me for any of these,” Gen. Abdul-Ilah Albashir said.”

“On May 14, Jarba and other rebel officials spent a half-hour with President Barack Obama at the White House, but the Islamic State threat didn’t appear to be a priority. The White House said they reviewed the “risks posed by growing extremism in Syria and agreed on the need to counter terrorist groups on all sides of the conflict.”

Whatever that means.

“Rebel officials said they hadn’t been able to get an appointment with U.S. defense officials. One obvious candidate would be U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Michael Nagata, who’s in charge of training and equipping a force of 5,000 Syrian rebels under a $500 million program. But Nagata has yet to meet a commander of the Free Syrian Army, according to a knowledgeable rebel official. White House spokesman Alistair Baskey said Nagata and his team were “free to meet with members of the moderate Syrian opposition as they deem fit in order to advance their train and equip program.”

Has any such meeting taken place?

I imagine in two weeks during the State of the Union, we’ll be told by the Commander-in-Chief that ISIS has been degraded, defeated, and on the way to being destroyed. Folks will stand and cheer, for what? This is what happens when campaign promises and politics supersedes strategic national security imperatives. Declaring the end of combat operations is not synonymous with victory.

______________________________________________

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

New Year message from Islamic Jihadists

Happy New Year message sent by Islamic jihadists: An analysis by Jim Kouri at the Examiner

Read the Kouri Files at the Examiner.com

While most people in the world on Wednesday bid farewell to 2014 and welcomed 2015, Islamic terrorists sent out their own brand of New Year greetings in the only way they know: killing the innocent and destroying public or private property.

Although, the U.S. news media is sure to cover the terrorist acts perpetrated in Iraq by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), as does President Barack Obama, they fail to understand that events in Iraq are part of an international jihad being fought by numerous radical Muslim terror networks and affiliates.

In fact, Obama and the majority of news people are more interested in closing down the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center, according to Thursday's The Hill.

During the run-up to New Year's Day there were a number of terrorist attacks in the Middle East and parts of Africa by groups such as al-Qaida ally Boko Haram, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), Al Shabaab, and other lesser known, but just as dangerous, organizations.

"They share one goal: the creation of a world devoted to Allah and ruled by Sharia law," said former police counterterrorism expert Joseph Manziano, now a director of security for an international firm. "And because they share a common fanaticism -- religious intolerance -- they are the most dangerous human beings on the planet," he added.

Boko Haram in Nigeria

Nigerian military officials announced on Wednesday that there is a large problem with the collateral damage that makes it difficult to recapture the cities and towns invaded and occupied by Boko Haram terrorists especially in Nogeria's Borno State.

The military officials were responding to the report that Boko Haram fighters shot and killed about 15 villagers and wound dozens of others in Kautikari. Most of the casualties were farmers who were non-Muslims living and farming in Borno State, a region that's recognized as a Islamist stronghold.

The terrorist attack was launched just after a handful of terrorists reportedly were killed when an IED (improvised explosive device) exploded due to what is believed to be an error in the handling of the powerful bomb. In anger, the terrorists decided to torch more than 20 homes in the defenseless village.

Kautikari is located adjacent to the still suffering town of Chibok , the community from which 200 school girls were abducted and dragged off by Boko Haram terrorists in April 2014. Most of the girls, and others kidnapped since April, are still being held captive by the vicious jihadists.

Al Shabbab in Kenya

During his New Year's address to the Kenyan people, President Uhuru Kenyatta acknowledged the increasing threat posed by Muslim terrorists, especially Al Shabaab, and claims his government in the new year will take "the war against terrorism a notch higher for the sake of stability and growth of the nation." The Kenyan leader said that he is committed ruthlessly engage the enemy in their jihadist endeavors.

Kenyatta spoke about his intentions to secure Kenya he urged his people to play their role in ensuring their own personal security and the security of their nation. Also on New Year's Eve. Kenyatta officials announced that at least 10 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are being investigated for "probable links with Somalia-based Al Shabaab."

According to the Kenyan police, the NGOs are suspected of soliciting funds in the name of delivering food and medical aid, but then using the money to finance Islamist terrorism in the country and the region.

Al Shabaab in Somalia

Two journalists from war-torn Somalia were wounded on New Year's Eve after Al Shabaab attacked a newsroom and tossed at least two grenades the radio station, the Somalia journalists' union announced. The two newsmen, -- assistant news director Shiine Abdi Ahmed and anchorman Abdullahi Mohamud Aden -- suffered leg and arm shrapnel wounds but none of the injuries are life-threatening. Somalia considered one of the most dangerous countries in the world for reporters to operate.

“We condemn this attack on Radio Galkayo, and call on Galkayo authorities to safeguard working journalists by tracking down those responsible. Attacks against journalists in Galkayo are occurring with alarming regularity,” said Omar Faruk Osman, NUSOJ Secretary General, in a statement released on New Year's Eve.

Somalia's President Hassan Mohamud had promised that 2014 would see the end of Al Shabaab, an Al-Qaida-linked terrorist group that has been battling successive governments for years. His promise could not quell the pessimism of the Somali people since that nation possesses a weak army and even weaker police force.

Taliban in Afghanistan

Besides the continued warfare between the Islamists and Afghanistan's military and police forces, civilians continued to be targeted by the radical Muslims from the Taliban. on New Year's Eve, the Taliban fired a rocket that targeted a wedding party. The rocket killed at least 20 wedding participants and wounded another 45 people.

Sangin district is a Taliban stronghold and Afghan security forces battling the Islamists are fighting against the terrorists on their own since the withdrawal of U.S., British and other military forces from the area six months ago. Many of those killed by the rocket are said to have been women and children.

Ansar al-Sharia in Libya

In Libya, seven Coptic Christian men were abducted in a city under the control of Islamic terrorist groups such as Ansar al-Sharia, a group-linked to al-Qaida. Father Estefanos, a priest in Anba Karas, confirmed to reporters that seven Egyptian Coptic men in the Libyan city of Sirte.

“Gunmen stopped a vehicle that was transporting the seven men who were with other colleagues, but they were the only ones kidnapped,” said Estefanos highlighting that he received the information from the those riding with them.

A large number of Egyptian Christians have been killed in Libya since the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime. Also, Middle East news sources reported that a teenage Coptic Christian girl was abducted after terrorists murdered her parents in Sirte.

Sirte is occupied by Islamist groups, including Ansar al-Sharia which is accused of running Islamic State training camps.

Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula

On New Year's Day, the U.S. State Department condemned the suicide attacks on people in Yemen who were engaged in a peaceful celebration honoring the "Prophet's Birthday" on New Year's Eve.

A terrorist wearing a vest containing an IED (improvise explosive device) blew himself up during the religious celebration. The Yemeni government claimed that least 26 people died and another 48 were wounded.

"We extend our deepest condolences to the families of those killed and wounded in the attack," the U.S. State Department said in a statement issued on Wednesday. "This cowardly attack is an ugly reminder of the lengths to which terrorists will go to destroy society and harm innocent people."

The above list doesn't include terrorism occurring in Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood), Israel (Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad), Iraq (ISIS), Syria (ISIS, al-Nusra Front), Lebanon (al-Qaida, Hezbollah), Tunisia (Ansar al-Sharia), Algeria (al-Qaida in the Maghreb), Mali (al-Qaida in the Maghreb), and other hot spots.

_____________________________________________

Jim Kouri, CPP, is founder and CEO of Kouri Associates, a homeland security, public safety and political consulting firm.

He's formerly Fifth Vice-President, now a Board Member of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, an editor for ConservativeBase.com, a columnist for Examiner.com and a contributor to WPTF, Raleigh, North Carolina.

To subscribe to Kouri's newsletter write to COPmagazine@aol.com and write "Subscription" on the subject line.

______________________________________________

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

 

Leaving Afghanistan - Repeating Iraq

Leaving Afghanistan, Repeating Iraq from the Warning Signs of Alan Caruba at Facts-not-Fantasy

Read Caruba at Facts-not-Fantasy

You don’t have to be a soldier or diplomat to ask whether President Obama’s withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan on December 31 is a good idea or not.

Consider what happened when he withdrew our troops from Iraq in 2011. The answer to that is the Islamic State which filled the vacuum left behind.

On December 25, Obama addressed troops stationed at Marine Corps Base in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii.

He told them that their service had given Afghanistan a chance “to rebuild its own country” whatever that means. Having been invaded over and over again for centuries, one wonders what country Obama was referring to.

“We are safer,” said Obama, “It’s not going to be a source of terrorist attacks again.” This is an illusion. Obama cannot make such predictions anymore than the Afghans can. So far, when it comes to foreign policy, Obama has a nearly unbroken record of failure.

Since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001, Afghan civilian casualties are estimated to have been 10,000 while 2,200 U.S. troops have been killed. The war is estimated to have cost $1 trillion, plus another $100 billion for reconstruction.

Know the Warning Signs

We have been in Afghanistan for 13 years and are scheduled to completely leave the country at the end of 2016 when Obama leaves office. As 2014 comes to a close, the White House had planned to have 9,800 troops there.

Together with Iraq, we will have 15,000 troops where we have been fighting al Qaeda since 2001. In Iraq, the war on Islamic terrorism forced the U.S. to return to fight ISIS. There are about 6,000 other international troops aiding us.

Afghanistan is likely to be a repeat of what occurred in Iraq. The cruel truth of the world we share is that the United States must be the planet’s policeman, leading coalitions of others who join us, or the bad guys who threaten us all will take over.

From the Roman Empire to the British one, this role is a vital one.

Corruption is the Enemy

Afghanistan has a Taliban problem, but close observers identify its corruption as the main enemy of progress. You can fight an enemy you can see, but fighting an inbred cultural problem is a whole other problem.

In April, testifying before a Senate subcommittee, framing his opening remarks in the form of a letter to whoever would win the presidency in then forthcoming elections, retired Gen. John Allen, a former commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan from 2011 to 2013, said that corruption, not the Taliban is the greater threat.

“For too long we focused our attention on the Taliban as the existential threat to Afghanistan,” but compared to the scope and magnitude of corruption, “they are an annoyance.”

Gen. Allen is so highly regarded that he is the President’s “special envoy” to more than 60 nations and groups that have joined a coalition to defeat the Islamic State. From just one reconnaissance mission per month after our withdrawal from Iraq, the U.S. now flies 60 per day.

That’s what happens when you don’t maintain a force to defeat an enemy. Referring to the Islamic State Gen. Allen testified that “We’re not just fighting a force, you know, we’re fighting an idea.”

Gen. Allen’s view of the issue of corruption in Afghanistan was supported by John Sopko, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction who addressed a gathering at the Middle East Institute in May, saying “corruption is more serious than the insurgency.”

Not only does it waste money, Sopko noted that it prevents helpful projects from being completed, robs the Afghan people of the resources they need, and makes them lose faith in their government.

Still hopeful for change, Afghans went to the polls in September and elected Dr. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, a former finance minister as their new president to replace Hamid Karzai. He will share power with a former foreign minister, Abdullah Avbudullah. Typical of Mideast politics, Ghani is an ethnic Pashtun and Abdullah was backed by Tajiks.

When the then-Soviet Union decided to invade Afghanistan in 1979 following a Marxist coup, hundreds of Afghans left the country as refugees. By the time the Soviets withdrew in 1983, there were 3.2 million refugees, mostly in Pakistan. The invasion so weakened support within the Soviet Union that it collapsed in 1991.

When President Bush struck back at al Qaeda after 9/11 he successfully bombed them out of existence there, but decided to send troops as well. Bush’s goal was to deprive al Qaeda of a safe base, but also to establish a modern democratic government there as a model for the Islamic world.

He repeated this in Iraq when he invaded to remove its dictator, Saddam Hussain. A tribal culture, the Middle East has had difficulties emerging into the modern world.

Prior to Obama’s reassurances to the Marines, the White House announced the release of our more prisoners from Guantanamo. They were repatriated to Afghanistan. If he continues to empty out Guantanamo, the U.S. will not lack for enemies bent on revenge.

As for our troops, they have remained in Afghanistan and Iraq ever since 9/11. Obama may want to withdraw or at least reduce the number of troops, but recent history suggests that until ISIS and comparable forces are defeated, future U.S. Presidents will have to maintain our forces there for many years to come.

______________________________________________

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

What if Obama was a 'crackah' ?

Would Obama be getting away with all of this if he were white? from the file of Colonel Allen B. West

I know everyone is talking about Obama’s unconstitutional actions, granting legal status to some 5.2 million illegal immigrants. If there’s one thing Obama and his spinmeisters are experts at, it’s the ability to change the dialogue in the country to a topic of their choosing.

Here we see Obama trying to make himself relevant again after a monumental drubbing on November 4th. What was a massive loss has been converted into a lawless triumph for an intransigent ideologue — you can’t spin this executive action in any other way.

The carefully-crafted rhetoric of President Obama Thursday night may fool a few, but not the many. Obama is a man angry with America for rejecting him and he is firmly focused on imposing his will “by any means necessary,” as for him and the progressive socialist left, the ends justifies the means – the end being their fundamental transformation of America.

But the master of deception — as we have learned from Jonathan Gruber — has once again distracted America. Heck, I bet most folks have already forgotten Jonathan Gruber, if they even knew who he was in the first place.

And so we’re not talking about economic growth and how many Americans still remain out of work or working extra part-time jobs to make ends meet. We’re no longer going to talk about the second enrollment period of Obamacare and the incredible increase in deductibles and premiums facing Americans.

We’re not discussing the employer mandate delay — also implemented unconstitutionally – which will end early next year and the adverse effects it will have on employer-based health insurance plans.

We’ve moved on from analyzing the horrible climate change agreement signed by President Obama with the Chinese that of course forces no restrictions on the Chinese but massive restrictions on America — which will result in higher energy costs for Americans.

And we’re certainly not talking about whether America is engaged in a combat operation. Y’all remember those fellas called ISIS that we were told would be degraded, defeated, and destroyed — kinda like al-Qaida is on the run and has been decimated? Sometimes you have to go outside the U.S. press to find out what’s really happening “over there” because our own media doesn’t seem to care.

According to a report from Reuters, “U.S. air strikes on a Syrian border town with Turkey killed at least two militants from Nusra Front, in the fourth such attack against the al-Qaida affiliate group since September, a monitoring group and Syrian activists said on Thursday.

The U.S. military said in a statement on Wednesday the strikes, which a monitoring group and several activists said took place late on Tuesday, destroyed a “storage facility run by veteran al-Qaida operatives” known as The Khorasan Group, whose members Washington says are plotting external attacks against the United States.”

I don’t mean to sound dismissive but an airstrike that killed two bad guys? Heck, we could do better if they’d just had a truck accident. And notice that the two “militants” were not even from ISIS but rather al-Qaida affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra front — but I thought al-Qaida was decimated and on the run. So are we now engaged in combat against al-Qaida’s Nusra front? And a storage facility run by al-Qaida operatives? What is the operational intent of our air combat operations?

This all has the trappings of “mission creep” and unseen escalation of combat actions in lieu of a dedicated and focused strategy. And when you don’t have strategic surveillance, “two residents near the rural border area of Harem in Idlib province said at least six civilians including two women and a child were injured in a residential house close to the house hit by the U.S. strike” — yes, collateral damages which could be reduced if you had “boots on the ground” providing accurate targeting information — or else you bomb a milk factory.

What is my point? America under President Barack Hussein Obama is a nation adrift, going from crisis to crisis with nothing ever resolved — just another new adverse situation.

Heck, I even forgot we have Secretary of State John Kerry negotiating with Iran over their nuclear program — and that is falling apart as well. You see, the Iranians know that Obama is the lamest of lame ducks and has no stomach for foreign policy issues. Oh, not to mention, we just had Russian bombers circle the Pacific island of Guam — where we have forces stationed. Not to mention that Vladimir Putin has made his move into Ukraine with his forces.

How has America allowed all this to happen? I’m going to ask that singular question that no one wishes to bring up — is it because we’ve lowered the bar so low just to satisfy the requirement of having the first black president? America, would we tolerate this from a white president?

Is the reason why Obama can act in such a manner is because he truly knows we will not hold him to any standard or make him accountable? After all, it’s all the fault of those white men — Republicans. Or the travails of the country are because of the white racist Tea Party people. Doggone, even Al Sharpton says his tax evasion issues are because we don’t like having a black president. Have we become so blinded to truth and devoid of a national character that we will allow a “historical moment” to be more important than the sanctity of our Constitutional Republic?

Nothing is going right for America under Obama — the first black president — and so will we continue along this path because it’s time for the first woman president? Oops, and I forgot, there’s that grand jury decision we’re awaiting in Ferguson, Missouri — who cares about justice and truth there? And this was supposed to be our post-racial America.

I do believe America will survive Barack Hussein Obama and his destructive policies — accompanied by a lawlessness and incompetence never before witnessed in the history of America. However, ask yourselves — at what cost to America?
________________________________________________

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

 

Obama's Ignorance

Obama's Ignorance from Warning Signs by Alan Caruba at Facts-not-Fantasy

Know the Warning Signs from Caruba On-Line

From time to time I hear President Obama described as “an evil genius”, but he is neither. He’s not evil. He’s something much worse. He is a fool who thinks he’s a genius.

This is not about his intelligence. No one gets to be President of the United States without some degree of intelligence. One suspects, however, Obama has always relied more on his charm and, initially, on the illusion of his charisma, based on his depiction by an adoring press.

His charisma has disappeared, even among the same press, but most abundantly among the American people of all political persuasions who now regard him as one recent poll put it, the worst President the nation has ever had.

Consider just a few of the ways his lack of judgment has reveal just how foolish he is. It began with foisting Obamacare on a nation deep in an economic crisis. He did this by telling lies about keeping one’s insurance or physician. It worsened as the website turned out to be a disaster and one easily hacked to get the personal information of those who signed on.

His famous “red line” about Syria’s Assad and his use of poison gas let Americans and the rest of the world watch him back off in a day’s time, only to be rescued by Russia that intervened to remove the poison gas, but missing in that action was the realization that Russia has been Assad’s main support. Their action was not an accommodation with the U.S. any more than Obama’s “reset” with them had any effect on their larger strategic objectives in the Middle East.

The Middle East has been quicksand for Obama who thought he could go there, give some speeches, and convince everyone that he was a friend to Islam and his policies would reverse those of George W. Bush. He got elected in 2008 on that promise. In hindsight we know that withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq simply created the circumstances for the Islamic State, ISIS, to emerge. He was surely warned against doing it, but we have a President who does not want to go to war even against enemies who behead our citizens and promise to attack us.

Here, though, is where even those Americans not paying much attention to foreign policy became aware of how vacant Obama’s was. He told them “I don’t have a strategy” regarding ISIS, letting them and the rest of the world that he had not given any attention to an emerging threat. In the Middle East, his decision to side with the Muslim Brotherhood regarding the ouster of Egypt’s dictator was reversed by Egyptians who demanded the removal of his replacement. In Libya he chose to “lead from behind” to topple Gaddafi, leading behind a nation that swiftly fell into divided camps between its tribes.

Available on Amazon

He has secured the support of Congress to spend a half billion dollars to arm the “moderate” rebels opposing Syria’s Bashar Assad. They will be trained in Saudi Arabia, but it is all too little too late. In an excellent new book, “The Russia-China Axis: The New Cold War and America’s Crisis of Leadership” by Douglas E. Schoen and Melik Kaylan ($27.99, Encounter Books), the authors spell out the foreign policy disasters that are leading America and the world toward the very real potential of World War Three.

Significantly, Schoen has been a major Democratic Party consultant for three decades. Kaylan is a widely respected expert on international politics and culture. When a Democrat co-authors a book that criticizes a Democrat President from beginning to end, others pay attention.

There is no way a rebel force can win in Syria. It has had to wage war against Assad’s forces and against those of ISIS, the fanatical self-declared Muslim caliphate. While neither Russia nor China want to see the jihadists secure control of the Middle East, Russia has made it clear that its support of Assad is deep.

In their book, the authors quoted a Russian government spokesman. “We have never changed our position on Syria and we never will” said Alexander Lukashevich, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman in December 2012. “A major Reuters report in January 2014 reported that Russia had ‘stepped up supplies of military gear to Syria, including armored vehicles, drones, and guided bombs, boosting President Bashar al-Assad just as rebel infighting has weakened the insurgency against him.”

“Russian (and Chinese) support for Assad is perhaps the most blatant example of the double game that Moscow and Beijing have played for years.” It is one of which Obama has been ignorant. In an October 2012 debate with Mitt Romney, when Romney said Russia was a major threat, Obama dismissed him saying “The 1980s—they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” Obama seems not to have learned anything of the Cold War with Soviet Russia from 1945 to 1991 when it collapsed. What we know now is that President Putin intends to reclaim its former empire, beginning with the annexation of Crimea.

Russia has sent warships into the Mediterranean and the Black Sea with some patrolling waters new Tartus, Syria, home to its only naval base in the Mediterranean. In recent weeks, Russian military aircraft have crossed into territory near both Canada and the U.S. to demonstrate its capacity to do so.

Anyone who has been watching the PBS documentary about the Roosevelt’s knows that Franklin D. Roosevelt faced a situation not unlike what exists today. Americans did not want to go to war again in Europe despite the threat that the Nazi regime represented. Roosevelt, seeing what was coming, had to carefully entreat Congress to reinstate a draft and to do what he could to arm Great Britain after it was attacked. Only the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese and Hitler’s subsequent declaration of war thrust America into World War II.

In contrast, Obama has reduced the U.S. Army to levels that it hasn’t seen since the days leading up to World War II. Likewise, the Navy, Air Force, and Marines have experienced comparable cutbacks. If Obama had his way, the U.S. would have zero nuclear weapons.

Unlike Roosevelt, Obama initially dismissed the threat from the Islamic State (ISIS), fumbling around for a “strategy” to deal with it and then, in an astounding piece of stupidity, declaring that there would be no “boots on the ground” to destroy it, after saying that its destruction was his goal. Within weeks, he was bombing the Syrian sites where ISIS was located.

In the September 23 edition of The Wall Street Journal, columnist Bret Stephens confirms my analysis. “Every administration tries to spin events its way; every president gets things wrong. Mr. Obama is not exceptional in those respects. Where he stands apart is in his combination of ideological rigidity and fathomless ignorance. What does the president know? The simple answer, and maybe the truest, is: not a lot.”

So, no, Obama is not an “evil genius.” He is an appallingly foolish man completely lacking any knowledge of history, thoroughly ignoring the intentions of Russia and China, doing nothing for the past six years to energize the economy, and spending most of his time either fund raising or playing golf.

____________________________________________

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

An eight word ISIS strategy

I can sum up the appropriate ISIS strategy in eight words says Colonel Allen West

Click Here to Read the Allen B. West Files

I have to ask you all if you can answer this question: what is a “very significant counter-terrorism operation with many moving parts that will be done over a period of time?”

Well, I served in the U.S. Army for 22 years and commanded at two levels, Company and Battalion, and was a Brigade-level operations officer. I deployed into several combat zones and even did a two-and-a-half year stint training Afghan officers and established a staff officers training course at the Kabul Military Training Center — so I know just a tad about operational planning. I have no idea what Secretary of State John Kerry meant — perhaps actress Tea Leoni could explain since she will be portraying that same position in the CBS series “Madam Secretary.”

As we discussed last Wednesday, Obama’s speech about his ISIS strategy made no sense — sadly ISIS knows that as well. If we were to utilize the model of Afghanistan with a force of some 500 to 600 U.S. Special Operators/CIA Operators with an indigenous force like the combined Kurdish Peshmerga force — meaning Syrian and Iranian Kurds as well — we would have the same calculus as with the Northern Alliance. As I’ve previously mentioned, the Taliban had a force of 70,000 along with 5,000 al-Qaida fighters and were routed out of Afghanistan under the massive pounding of U.S. airpower.

However, Mr. “Military Tactician” Barack Hussein Obama believes he has a better plan of Yemen or Somalia as an example — and has reiterated that he won’t be following the “mistakes” of the previous administration — hmm, I wonder about whom he’s referring?

We cannot “destroy” ISIS because that means every single person would have to be killed – after all, you cannot destroy an ideology. What we can do is defeat ISIS to render it combat-ineffective to pursue any further goals and objectives. As for the ideology, we must “delegitimize” it and that is a dedicated strategic and operational information war – using social media and operational/tactical level psychological operations messaging.

We must understand that destroying Islamo-fascism is a long term endeavor just as we destroyed Nazism, Japanese imperialism, or communism in the fall of the Soviet Union — however, socialism still exists, even here in America.

But our immediate task is to defeat ISIS and I can sum up that strategy in eight words:

We SHOOT, They DIE. We WIN, They LOSE!

Dropping bombs is not actually war

Kerry thinks dropping bombs on ISIS isn't actually war from the files of Colonel Allen B. West

Read the Allen B. West Files

Ok, this is becoming rather embarrassing for America. Let me be clear, when you are dropping a bomb on someone’s head, you are at war with them — unless, you are Barack Hussein Obama or John Kerry.

According to *** CNN, “U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday would not say the United States is at war with ISIS, saying the administration’s strategy includes “many different things that one doesn’t think of normally in context of war.”

“What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation,” Kerry told CNN’s Elise Labott in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. “It’s going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so, but the fact is it’s a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts.”

So, can anyone explain to me what a “very significant counter-terrorism operation” is? Last time I checked the dictionary of military tactics, operations and terminology, a counter-terrorism operation means folks die. And if the goal is to “destroy” ISIS that means you are conducting violent actions against them — a war.

Classical military strategist Carl von Clausewitz defined war as the imposition of one’s will upon another — don’t we want to impose our will on ISIS? Isn’t seeking to degrade and destroy an enemy a matter of imposing your will — would that not mean conducting war?

This incessant PC nonsense emanating from the Obama administration continually erodes confidence. Why would I want to join a coalition with a bunch of amateurish incompetent chuckleheads who have no clue? As a matter of fact, the vaunted “coalition” of nine countries took a hit when the United Kingdom and Germany stated they hadn’t signed up for any airstrikes – but hey, we do still have the Albanians.

Just to demonstrate how delusional world Kerry’s world is, get this, he said, ISIL has attracted a “significant coalition” that is determined to go and destroy it. And who Mr. Secretary of State may that be? As we wrote here, the Turks have reservations about the Kurdish Peshmerga Army being armed and supported — so they’re not “all in” either.

Another major concern is that the Obama administration doesn’t want to present its case to Congress for approval — by vote, all things political. Say what you wish, but George W. Bush assembled a coalition of almost 40 countries and received approval from Congress for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Now, instead of doing the same, Obama believes in his imperial little mind that he already possesses the authority to involve America in a “very significant counter-terrorism operation” – a careful choice of words which he believes allows him to skirt Constitutional responsibilities, because only Congress can authorize war.

Obama is using the existing AUMF (Authorization of Use of Military Force) enacted under the Bush administration after 9-11 as cover.

*** CNN reports, “Kerry, in Jeddah for meetings with Arab leaders to enlist regional support for a coalition to defeat ISIS, defended the administration’s insistence that the 2001 authority to go after al Qaeda and affiliates applies to ISIS. He insisted that, despite the split between jihadist groups, the origin of ISIS as an al Qaeda affiliate is enough to consider them connected. “This group is and has been al Qaeda,” Kerry said. “By trying to change its name, it doesn’t change who it is, what it does.”

I hate to tell ol’ Johnny boy but even al-Qaida doesn’t want its name associated with ISIS, and I bet Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi takes offense at being associated with al-Qaida. Then again, I thought that all these al-Qaida folks were decimated and on the run? So what is the truth, B. Hussein and John?

There should be no funds appropriated for this ambiguous endeavor until there is clarity, which at this time there is none. As well, Obama should go to Saudi King Abdullah and tell him to fund this venture – the Saudis did for Operation Desert Shield/Storm — heck, they even wanted to pay every troop who fought a stipend.

But Kerry didn’t want to be upstaged by Obama’s ridiculous statement that “ISIS is not Islamic.”

“When asked whether Saudi Arabia supports the extremist expressions of the Wahhabism version of Islam espoused by some terror groups, Kerry told CNN that the nation is “deeply committed to the effort to terminate ISIL.”

“They have never funded the kind of effort you’re talking about with respect to ISIL,” Kerry said, adding that a significant part of the counter-terrorism effort will include stemming fundraising for terror groups.”

Kerry evaded the question and we all know Saudi Arabia funds Wahabbism all over the globe. The House of Saud does indeed have members who are supporting ISIS with funding. And there are Saudis amongst the ISIS terrorist army — why not just tell the truth Mr. Secretary of State?

Ladies and gents, there is no way we can trust this administration to handle this situation, unless you applaud their efforts in enabling it. The confusion is mounting. There is no coalition. And all Obama has done is outsourced our national security.

We have nearly 1,500 combat troops on the ground in Iraq who are wearing boots — yet we’re told they’re not to be involved in combat — so why deploy them? If it’s to “train” Iraqi troops, they’re already trained. Just put the original generals and leaders back in charge, and get rid of al Maliki’s cronies.

So again, we’re going to conduct a very significant counter-terrorism operation to degrade and destroy ISIS, but not with American ground troops, and it’s not a war — but we have a coalition.

The only ones not confused are ISIS, and they are winning.

*** Note: CNN pulled the supporting video yesterday.