Wednesday, September 3, 2014

ISIS is Just One Forward Element in a War Waged by Islam!

This is hardly a new issue for this President. For starters, he has been as deceptive about his relationship to Islam as all of this sitting government's reluctance to name Islam, the enemy. And even those who have dared venture into those troubled waters, have been reticent to suggest how we should proceed with each new iteration of Islam's blood-lusting assault.

Those discussing the ISIS/ISIL phenomenon, treat this particular viral infestation as a unique manifestation in much the same way they have treated every seemingly new but separate spawn of this agency of hell.

This aversion to naming the enemy has gone from frustrating to idiotic to damnable as those primarily entrusted with the security of this nation continue to squirm in their seats at the very prospect of questions forcing them to declare their rudimentary understanding of this seventh century scourge. For many, it is just as well they are not asked because their answers would make the strongest of us embarrassed to share the same gene pool.

That ISIS/ISIL is a blood-lusting and dangerous group of murderers is a given. If they make a threat - to anyone, they should be taken at their word regardless of how unlikely it seems they could carry it out. They have proven their resolve and, their resolve is tempered in the furnace of Islam. Denying this makes men in dignified political positions look like the three monkeys. Whatever else can be said about gaggles like this, their points of origin all remain constant; Islam.

So, if ISIS/ISIL, Ansar Al Sharia, Boko Haram, Al Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah ad infinitum have as their common denominator, Islam and if these groups can be traced back to Islamic nations who either intentionally or unwittingly (publicly speaking), spawned these groups, why is it so difficult to declare them Islamic? Because there are nearly 2 billion Muslims in the world and the majority of them are not "actively" involved in Jihad.

Using the incredibly sophomoric math politicians like to use, they come to their conclusions like this; "if it ain't got a bomb in a vest, it's a friendly". Of course most discerning people would be able to conjure up a list of questions to determine if this approach is correct and most, like myself have asked those questions and to a one, we have received the exact, same response; "These groups do not represent Islam, they are fringe", which neither answers the question nor suggests any depth of understanding of the networking required to carry out these attacks.

Even a cursory study of history and the related history of Islam reveals just how consistent Islamic adherents have been in their quest to honor their Prophet and their 'god' and to use the incredibly horrific methodology utilized for centuries to both drive fear into their enemies and to reap converts. Since the seventh century and the inception of Islam, there has not been one single shred of evidence to support the argument for "two Islams". At best, we can see evidence of those who have been stalwart followers of Mohammed and his doctrines and those who have shown themselves to lack the stomach for the fight. The latter group, being the largest segment has been erroneously labeled Moderate and even more aggravatingly, the True Believers of the True Islam without so much as basic study of the doctrines and the charts of abrogation detailing the changing philosophy, exhortations and admonitions delivered to Mohammed by the entity who identified himself as Allah.

It is this second group that is probably the most dangerous because men who are willing to pay for murder and torture, rape, incest, pedophilia, slavery and every other degradation man can consider are even more vile and more difficult to find, then those they willingly fund to commit these acts, in the name of their shared 'god'.

And this is the point; Politicians and upper echelon Military Officers alike have chosen to take the comfortable position of answering a manifest threat only, rather than seeking the origin of the threat for fear of angering the many and chancing alienating themselves from the feeble minded who cannot allow themselves to consider the possibility that a religion exists, with murder as a primary tool in the propagation of its ideology.

And so, this morally challenged President, his dhimmi Administration and his neutered upper echelon Staff Officers, continue to engage in this perverse game of wack-a-mole which does nothing more than bleed the resolve of the American people, the coffers of the country and the best of a generation simply because they lack the moral fiber to do the right thing and face the enemy which has always been at war with us, name them and hold them accountable.

So for those continuing to struggle to know exactly what these smaller cells represent, I will use very common Military vernacular to explain where they fit and how they should be understood on the battlefield;

All of these smaller cells are merely the Forward Element of the Assault on Humanity and the assault is commanded by Islam. The Main Body of the Assault, is, the Ummah. As the political geniuses continue to try and explain or understand how organizations like ISIS can continue to build in number, it is helpful if they begin to think of them in this way. It then becomes obvious that the "replacements/recruits" for the Forward Element (right now ISIS), would come from the Main Body or even a "Reserve" if seeing the Ummah in this light makes better sense, because the "recruits" certainly aren't coming from the Evangelical or Catholic Church and they most assuredly aren't coming from Synagogues. And being as they are at least marginally human, we can be sure they are not being beamed in from Mars!

Islam has written the Commander's Intent, drawn up the strategy, assembled the Army, taken to the field and is fighting while this Islamic mole of a President, his dhimmi administration, and morally defunct Staff Officers circumvent their sworn oaths to protect the Constitution and by proxy, the American population. They willingly cede the battle space to the enemy while providing American War Fighters as sacrificial goats for Allah, compelled to operate within untenable Rules of Engagement, promulgated by an antiquated and historically failed Strategy they simply refuse to let go….COIN.

Will this ever change? Unfortunately, only once the enemy has truly breached the gates and the American people are finally free to defend themselves.

Because this government is an abysmal example of how men entrusted with the security of a nation should respond to a most obvious threat.

Semper Fidelis;


John Bernard

Monday, June 9, 2014

Concerning Tomorrow's Primary Election in Maine;

For years now we have been hearing and airing complaints about the travesty that defines the political atmosphere in Washington DC. Many have complained that the differences between the GOP and the DNC are so slight, on many subjects as to be nearly indiscernible.

I have agreed with that assessment.

It does often seem as though the people we send to DC to represent us either leave their home turf having already been compromised by funding generated from within that DC cesspool or become so, once they are exposed to the pathogens walking the streets of our nation's capital.

People on the right have become so disenchanted that they have chosen to stay home during election cycles, rather than vote; believing their votes either won't count, or will be abused by yet one more disappointment using their tax dollars to feather another career politician's retirement plan

Here, I have partially agreed.

In the last two Presidential elections roughly 50% of those registered or at least claiming to be Republicans or Constitutional Conservatives have chosen to stay at home, feet propped up on a chair eating popcorn and throwing metaphorical tomatoes at the TV screen, rather than acting like responsible, Patriotic Americans, and casting their vote - even for the least of two evils.

I have NOT agreed with this stance!

I gave much of my life, preparing to defend the Constitution of this nation, serving in one war with many like-minded friends who have spent much of their lives doing the same thing. I have watched as the young of this generation have served several deployments to Islamic hell-holes with multiple thousands suffering the indignity of life altering wounds and over four thousand dying at the hands of a recalcitrant enemy and a complicit United States Government which has apathetically allowed them to be forced to serve within the strictures of COIN strategy rather than to listen to the sound counsel of those of us who are all too familiar with brutal failure those endeavors have been over these seventy four years since it was officially adopted as an optional battle stratagem.

Those who have sat home during these past two Presidential elections and interim/midterm elections will not like hearing this, but, you share the blame. You share the blame because you were upset that a candidate fitting your narrow definition of "the right" candidate hadn't miraculously materialized for your voting pleasure.
The problem is, none of you have stepped forward to run, either!

Now we face yet one more election cycle and though the choices available may not be all that each of us would like to see, the truth is, there are differences - and those differences will make the difference between the life, and the death of America's oath-bound War Fighters.

Frankly I no longer care whether the nation succeeds, or fails. I will cast my vote but also recognize that I live in a nation of some 338,000,000 people and I do not necessarily represent the majority opinion on, well, anything. BUT, if there is any hope of this country once again looking like what I would like it to be, and any hope of our War Fighters once again being heralded as heroes and more important than the enemy they fight, or the ideologically defiled civilians they must operate amongst, it will only happen if those of us "who claim" to be Patriotic, Constitutionally Conservative Americans leave the couch and act like responsible, dutiful adults rather than like spoiled children - and vote.

I tire of hearing people complain between voting cycles, but then defend their lack of involvement in the one institution that might make our lot in life a little less miserable.

This is not a kindly reminder; this is a kick in the backside; get off the bloody couch and get down to the polling booth tomorrow and whatever other days voting is taking place, here in Maine and around the country!

It is your civic duty. It is then, your moral duty. It is the duty of the collective otherwise known as "the King"!
For too many election cycles now, the King has been absent his appointed place of duty; he has seemingly abdicated and left the throne to miscreants and criminals.

It is time for the king - the people, to get back to work and it starts by voting and selecting the best option; even if that best option is simply the least of two evils.

If you can't do it for any other reason, do it for our War Fighters!

Semper Fidelis;


John Bernard

Friday, June 6, 2014

Obama's Current Moral…Sorry, Political Dilemma: Bergdahl versus Tahmooressi!

President Obama has a spectacular, seemingly supernatural gift; the ability to always be on the wrong side of every issue. His innate sense of how to alienate, separate, divide, anger, polarize and mystify will astound students of political history for the next millennium.

Not only does he seem to intentionally select positions which polarize and divide, he seems to take pleasure in doing so.

This week it was announced that he had secured the release of Bowe Bergdahl, an American soldier who is at the least guilty of walking away from his combat post in Afghanistan. Obama couldn't help himself but make a public spectacle of his latest achievement by inviting Berdahl's parents, including an apparently spiritually conflicted Father whose answer to his Son's predicament was to ensconce himself in all things Islam. The Father went further than simply learning the culture but chose, rather, to delve into the dark abyss of Taliban teachings and the Pashtu Language.

The official reason for his bizarre transformation from hardcore Calvinist to a mere philosophe of the recalcitrant Taliban was a desire to portray a penitent and contrite, if not dhimmi spirit so as not to raise the ire of the 7th century, demonically possessed serial killers holding his son.

This however, does not explain his Arabic utterances and praises to Allah on the lawn of the White House, given his Son had already been released and was being treated in an Infidel hospital in Germany. It also doesn't explain President Obama's groans of approval upon hearing the elder Bergdahl's supplication to the demon, Allah.

This entire episode has been made even worse with the knowledge that Bergdahl junior may not only have left his combat post, defined as desertion in another era, but may in fact be shown to have collaborated with the enemy by the time the investigation is finished; this of course is assuming President Obama and his loyal minions don't intercede on his behalf, compromising the JAG investigation, first.

All of this would be difficult enough to digest if it wasn't that another American War Fighter, an actual dyed in the colors of the Flag, United States Marine, Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi has been languishing in a Mexican prison for months simply for taking the wrong, unmarked exit off a US highway, forcing him into Mexico by error. And make no mistake about it, none of the twice deployed, combat veteran's fellow Marines would have second thoughts about declaring him an honorably serving United States Marine.

So where is President Obama or his State Department on this case of a United States war veteran's unfortunate circumstance? Who knows. They have been silent on the subject for the entire two months Tahmooressi has been tethered like an animal in that third world hell-hole.

Of course let's keep this in perspective; Tahmooressi is a United States Marine and by all accounts, not a Muslim sympathizer. He is a gun owner and most importantly, he is jailed by a government whose citizens are allowed to cross the southern border of the United States - without so much as a handshake in the hopes they will become good, DNC members and vote for, well, who knows, maybe a future Presidential hopeful like, Michelle Obama.

Enter General Stanley McChrystal; an American General who never met a Muslim he wasn't willing to sacrifice the Sons and Daughters of Americans for, a la, the historically failed and miserably contrived battle stratagem; COIN (Counter Insurgency Doctrine).

According to this disgraced Army G-Grade Officer concerning Sergeant Bergdahl; "…“One of the great things about America is we should not judge until we know the facts. And after we know the facts, then we should make a mature judgment on how we should handle it.”…Mature defined as; "whatever is politically expedient for my lord and master, Barrack Obama…"

If the good General were as concerned about the welfare of American Warfighters as he publically declares he is, he would have thrown his support behind Tahmooressi long before going public with a statement about Bergdahl, supporting Obama's latest manifestation of situational ethics which led to the release of five of the worst residents of the Gitmo Bay detention center.

At least there is consistency and consistency, is good. If the General had thrown his support behind Tahmooressi, he might never have been printed in Yahoo News and, it would have given the rest of us something to consider. It would force us to consider whether our earlier assessments of him, as nothing more than a not even marginally imaginative political Officer, was a tad off center.

Yes; consistency is good.

However, now that the Islamic Soldiers, the Islamic converts, the current, morally compromised President and his loyal if not sullied dhimmi General are all satisfied, there remains one last bit of business to take care of; an honorable Marine being held in a third world detention center for doing nothing more than attempting to visit friends some two months ago.

His sin?

He took an unmarked exit, by mistake which corralled him across the Mexicican border; the same border by the way, through which multiple millions of Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, Islamists, Drug Runners, Jihadists and every other form of degenerate are allowed to pass through, without scrutiny and with the tacit approval of this President, his appointed staff, the entire membership of the DNC and many members of the GOP.

And while he continues to languish in a prison just across the border from his country which he ironically, swore to protect, his government and leading members of the military, laud the "accomplishments" of a soldier guilty at least, of desertion and most likely, collaboration with the enemy; an enemy that continues to take the lives of America's Sons and Daughters.

In a world where everything has been turned on it's head, it is good to see consistency however. It is good to know that pure evil cannot help but maintain it's genuine appearance.

It helps us maintain balance. It helps us remember who we are, what we swore our oaths to, our nation, our country, our families, our hope.

It forces us to remember that voting - or refusal to vote, reaps consequences.

For the sake of Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi, for the sake of all honorably serving American Service Members, remember your minimum duty to your country and cast your vote.

In the meantime, call your Senators, your Representatives, your Media outlets, the State Department. Speak to your Church congregation, your Friends, your Family.

This Marine should not have suffered for two weeks, much less two months and he certainly should not have taken second seat to a combat deserter!

Semper fidelis;


John J. Bernard

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Today's Mis-Direct Flavor? Boko Haram

In one of the latest examples of the inability of writers, the media and politicians to clearly define our current enemy, Nick Cohen, writing for "The Observer"  makes an impassioned plea for the safety of some two hundred and twenty Nigerian girls, seized by one of the more current and infamous forward elements of Islamic Jihad, Boko Haram. For starters, these girls are Christian and from a predominately Christian village in northeast Nigeria, called Chibok.

What I will agree to is the insulting, narrowly focused Obama Administration which has bent over backwards, seeking asylum for children and families of Islamic origin while unconscionably ignoring the plight of beleaguered Christians in places like Homs, the Coptic villages of Egypt and now, Christians once again being brutalized by the Devil's forces in Nigeria.

By the end of the Observer piece, Cohen quotes a Peter Singer who allegorically describes an apathetic world community, unwilling to secure the safety of a drowning child for fear of ruining expensive clothing. For Cohen, the self-involved and well-dressed, neer-do-well stranger in the allegory, is the collective westernized cultures who are not willing to fund organizations which purport to be helping these people.

He also misses a salient point; the name "Boko Haram", translates as "Western Education is Sinful", ie, everything western is tainted and sinful because most western cultures are not Islamic. So, he castigates westerners for not giving western funds to largely, western charities, to transfer to a region ostensibly controlled by Boko Haram fighters who, by their very name, denigrate - and hate Westerners. It is probably also lost on him and others that these children were taken, largely, for dabbling in western cultural ideas…like giving.

Let me clear this up for him and anyone else listening who is similarly confused; It isn't that people don't want to help. It is, however that people don't trust the true abilities, competency and veracity of those claiming to help - especially, governments. It has been proven, over and over again that these organizations which have been established for the reported purpose of aiding the afflicted, waste money at a rate slightly less than our infamous governing body in Washington DC. To add insult to injury, they are headed by CEO's or even committees stripping those donated funds to feather their grossly incongruous incomes and retirement packages.


Honorable people claiming to help don't generally ingratiate themselves in this most obscene of ways. They do like the rest of us do - they donate their time and energy and yes, their incomes! But it seems the majority of the leaders of these "charities" are simply establishing a comfortable business position and fattening their resumes.

The average person gets tired of hearing about these abuses and eventually gets the message; "give at your own risk". For Christians taught to give, there is another exhortation, to be good stewards of what we have, insuring we are using our gifting, talents, materiel - and money, for things which will bear fruit. Giving money to organizations or supporting efforts of government, blindly, out of emotion driven reflex is not only likely to run afoul of that command, but here on earth, is likely to do little more than create an income for people not properly focused.

It was also discouraging to see Cohen added to the endless list of people displaying the same aversion to accuracy that this government has regularly; he seems to lack the courage to define the literal enemy in this story looking instead to rail against a microcosm; Boko Haram.

The enemy, is Islam and Islam's soldiers in their war against all of humanity, are Muslims. Until courage, common sense, theological and historical accuracy are returned to the discussion, you will continue to find people reticent about giving their hard earned money to people and organizations of dubious intent.

Additionally, the world government and the governments of nations saying they would help, are not truly focused on the true definitions of this enemy and as such, seek to treat Islamic combatants with "human dignity", giving them the same deference reserved for honorable men, donning the uniforms  of sovereign nations.

These "people", these Islamic terrorists, these "True Soldiers" are at best, stateless bandits; at worst, agents of Hell. They deserve no quarter nor should they be afforded any. They should be slaughtered where and when found, their bodies desecrated and placed in a burn pile with the rotting remains of swine.

The Ummah needs to know beyond any shadow of doubt, that to seek Allah's Paradise through death by prosecuting Jihad, will reap them an unclean and meritless death and an enemy with the tenacity of a dog with a bone who will locate, close with and destroy them until they repentantly crawl back under the Rock from whence they came.

Until these conditions are met, Mister Cohen needs to redirect his rhetorical cannon at the true enemy of compassionate giving; the politicians and those self-proclaimed agencies of mercy.

Come back when you are ready to truly help both these girls and so many others brutalized by the satanic doctrines of Islam because there are multiple millions of us prepared to sacrifice and to do what is necessary in order to stop this scourge upon the earth.

We are not, however, simply going to feather the nests of not even remotely imaginative thieves just because one frustrated writer decides to insult the very people who truly want to help!

Semper Fidelis;


John Bernard

Monday, January 6, 2014

An Epic Expression of Failed COIN Strategy; Fallujah falls to Al Qaida Factions.

For the better part of five years, I have been decrying the unconscionable use of the historically failed strategy of Counter Insurgency (COIN) in the midst of an ideological monolithic culture; principally of Islam.

In the past few days and just two years after the final elements of US forces withdrew from Iraq, stories are emerging, bringing to completion the seemingly prophetic message I and others warned of two years ago; that Al Anbar has fallen back into Al Qaida hands with a self-neutered Iraq government seemingly powerless to stop it. I also made the case, then, that Al Anbar was not won by General Petraeus' conjuring up the spirit of COIN specifically, but by the infusion of some 30,000 American uniforms into the region.

This process is more akin to the scientific theory of displacement than battlefield strategy. If you fill a region with men bearing one set of Colors, the unit marching under a different Banner, will be forced to displace - and they did. The effort to liberate Fallujah, twice, yielded a temporary reprieve for the non-combatants living there which now seems to have been reversed with Al Qaida and other like-minded cells and tribal components, retaking that city and Ramadi.

What is so damnably frustrating about this is that too many of us to list, foretold of this, years ago. And if there were any left in this country who still held onto the belief that either our civilian leadership or the left-listing General Grade Officers which populate the upper echelon of our Military structure were somehow visionaries and intellectuals, this latest manifestation of a failure of foresight should hopefully drive a spike through the heart of that lingering belief.

Not once - but twice, Marines, Sailors and Soldiers were asked to lay down their lives, "liberating" Al Anbar and most specifically, Fallujah; the second time being tightly restrained by the rigid ROE (Rules of Engagement) borne of the incomprehensibly idiotic paradigm of COIN! And now, two years later, that effort and all that blood, proves to have been for naught!

My argument against applying the rigid stricture of COIN - on any battlefield was multi-faceted and immutable. First, if the hope of armed conflict is to convince your enemy of the futility of continuing on his chosen path then historically it has failed to some degree or another, each and every time it has been employed.

Second, the principle reason for dragging it out of the dusty archives of failed ideas has been the desire to mitigate collateral damage among the "innocent" population. The Pentagon assigned that misnomer to the Iraqi and Afghan populations due to a very poorly managed assessment of the human terrain in both countries which concluded the general population was innocent and not party to the calamity that was their culture. This assumption was made possible due to a systemic ignorance of the dominating religion and its likely effect on the daily actions of the people or their potential sympathies with the "insurgency".

Third, it is not our place, constitutionally or even morally, to save any people from themselves. Civil wars and internal strife are, by definition, internal. In our haste to re-establish some semblance of order in a country we had invaded, choices were made which changed the dynamics of the balance of power, giving control to the Shiite majority, placing that nation in league with Iran and at odds with Al Qaida which is principally Sunni.

It is clear, these years later, that Al Qaida and the Sunni population in Iraq do not intend to sit idly by, allowing the status quo to stand. Attacking Al Anbar, taking Fallujah and the capital, Ramadi, sends a clear message to Baghdad. It also should cause the "dead" in DC to take note. Where there were assurances made about the strategy shift to COIN and the naïve compartmentalization of Iraqi society during the war, it ought to be crystal clear now that those assumptions were wrought with error. It should also be clear that interfering in another nation's governmental business or trying to fix a perceived problem in that regard can yield unintended consequences.

Our only legitimate reason for our incursion into Iraq was to stop Saddam Hussein from building, stockpiling and using "weapons of mass destruction" which every single intelligence agency agreed, was the case and a clear and present danger to the US and our western allies. It is entirely incidental to the argument that those weapons were not found after the initial incursion. As history mockingly reminds us, waiting 6 months to carry out the threat of a military strike, gives ample time for the intended target to redistribute war materiel and in this case the WMD's which gave impetus to the incursion in the first place. The Monday morning quarterbacking that has taken place since those early years of that war, has been shamelessly enjoined by specific political figures for political gain. In recent months, it has become evident that at least some of those weapons components and systems may well have been transported to Syria, as suspected years ago.

The point being, if those weapons existed as multiple intelligence agencies, reported, then that was the only possible legitimate reason for the initial incursion. Being as Saddam Hussein and his government were of Iraq, it fell to the Iraqi people to change the political structure in Iraq and destroy those weapons, IF, they truly felt building and keeping them was wrong. There remains only two legitimate reasons why they didn’t act; cowardice or collusion. Our concerns early on should have factored in those two possibilities and come to the only conclusion one can, it is not our place to imbue on a people our hope for them, but rather to accept them for what they are, finish the mission utilizing a strategy with the greatest hope for success and then come home.

Having tried yet one more time to re-envision the ideological genetics of a people and then modify sound battlefield tactics to accommodate that vision, we are now seeing, one more time how that effort can fail. As they say, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. No amount of hoping or conjuring or beneficent pandering to a people ideologically aligned against you will change their minds or their adherence to their ideology, even if that ideology has helped cause their misery.

Every effort to minimize damage among the civilian population through the unreasonably rigid tenets of COIN which by design, place our American born War Fighters; our Sons and Daughters, at exponentially increased risk, was both immoral and unconstitutional! The simple answer for the security of the Iraqi people was something that should have happened before it was deemed necessary to attack them - they should have revolted! The truth is that the condition of any nation is the primary responsibility of the people who bear its name. To that end, the Iraqi people failed, and are failing once again after we wrongly wasted the blood of our current generation to do something that was not our business; sparing the lives of a people who hate us ideologically!

This conversation needs to happen right now, even as this Administration has committed troops to Sudan, has made the effort to commit resources to Syria, continues to flounder in Libya, is attempting to negotiate reason in Iran, has inserted itself into the Israeli/"Palestinian" conflict and is still puzzling over Egypt.

Clearly the Administration is fighting with one academic arm tied behind its back and is sending folks holding diplomatic credentials who are equally challenged when it comes to understanding the complexities of Islamic culture and Islamic doctrine.

These continued ill-advised efforts to massage the troubles of cultures in the Islamic world are proceeding with bad advice about those cultures and their religion and continue to threaten the well-being of American War Fighters who are continually compelled to act as a highly restricted police force rather than this nation's Warrior Guard.

We have literally wasted the lives and the wellbeing of far too many of this generation, chasing after something that cannot be achieved; improved relations with a people who will only be satisfied when the last vestige of Infidel's corpses are rotting in the ground.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Monday, December 30, 2013

The Benghazi Disaster reduced to Definitions of Affiliation, Ideology and Philology, with the Shameless Intent of Giving Cover to the White House.

The controversy ignited by the latest story emanating from the decaying carcass that is the New York Times and it's writer, David Kirkpatrick, playing the amateur philologist on NBC's "Meet the Press", magnifies the ludicrousness of political discourse in the second decade of this twenty first century. In one of the most nauseating displays of familial fawning to date, David Gregory all but kissed Kirkpatrick for the dubious conclusions drawn from his investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack.

The centerpiece of Kirkpatrick's report is his conclusion about whether or not Ansar Al Sharia was in fact affiliated with or led by Al Qaida agents. He draws his conclusion, which conflicts with standing testimony and conclusions in DC, from "months of interviews conducted by the New York Times". He also concluded that the attack itself, while conducted by a small disparate, unconnected militant group, was in fact launched in retaliation for the now famed YouTube video about Mohammed.

The two things which dissolve the credibility of his conclusions and NYT's investigation are the amount of time that had transpired between the date of the attack and the interviews and his counter claim about the affect of the video tape.. Clearly the interviews had taken place some months after the attack and certainly far enough removed to give the interviewees an opportunity to fine tune their comments utilizing information gleaned from the internet and other venues thereby making the content of those interviews unreliable.

Second, the claim that the video was the reason for the attack, even hours after the attack was unbelievable given that the video had only been viewed by a particularly small number of people anywhere in the world, much less from the war torn wasteland that is Libya.

Predictably, Kirkpatrick launched into a diatribe on the practical use of the word affiliation saying that it can mean different things to different people. Of course he was trying to drive a spike in the heart of the allegation that the militants who attacked the Benghazi compound were "affiliated" with Al Qaida. What is so spectacularly unintelligible about this point is that it had been determined during Libya's revolution that Al Qaida agents were helping and coordinating efforts during that fight. To suggest they simply abandoned the effort after the fact defies logic; making this a focal point of his conclusions does nothing to bolster his credibility or that of those months of NYT interviews.

The more important indication of an apparent affiliation with Al Qaida was apparently not obvious to Kirkpatrick and it may well be because he has never sullied himself in a uniform and therefore has little practical understanding of military strategy, alliances and affiliations. He also seems to have missed the fact that anyone adhering to an established religious doctrine, at least academically, forges an unspoken alliance with likeminded adherents to include any divine exhortations to action. His dismissal of the affiliation charge clearly indicates his having discounted the years of investigation, messaging interception and ground reconnaissance which has placed Al Qaida in the midst of far more militant cells and specific attacks than any of us would like. His dismissal of Ansar Al Sharia as a first hand, trained, ideological affiliate, frankly, belies his political leanings more than his investigative gut about the likelihood of such an affiliation given the years of collective action by Al Qaida nearly everywhere in the world.

His assertions that Ansar Al Sharia was not "affiliated" with Al Qaida central simply because NYT's late-to-the-game interviews indicated so, puts the entirety of history on its head. Using his logic, The United States effort in the European Theater in WW II, was a unilateral act by virtue of our not being "of Britain". In addition he either doesn't understand the difference between a temporary, military alliance between member nations and an ideological coupling or, was determined to lose his audience in the fog of semantics for another purpose; I respectfully suggest the latter and David Gregory, was more than happy to accommodate him in this most dubious effort by not questioning him on anything tangential to the story.

For instance, even if Ansar Al Sharia was neither ideologically nor legally bound to Al Qaida, it still does not explain why Ambassador Stevens was some thirteen hours away from his appointed place of duty, in Tripoli, meeting with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin an hour before the attack. Every story printed or spewed across transmission lines and satellite signals has managed to omit any discussion about this meeting some thirteen hours away from the United States Embassy in Tripoli, across very hazardous roads and in the midst of a very unstable Benghazi and even Congressman Darrell Issa, neglected to mention this when afforded the opportunity to counter Kirkpatrick's claims.

The lack of forthrightness by the Administration over these many months indicate the attack itself served more as a convenient cover for the White House and whatever else was going on in Benghazi that night and in the weeks prior, than it did for Ansar Al Sharia or Al Qaida.

This is the true travesty of this event; that something untoward or illegal was underway at the compound in Benghazi and is being conveniently sidelined by lesser "concerns". It is equally appalling that after 14 years of intense, national exposure to this same enemy and his ideology that we cannot muster a simple majority in Congress which agrees, at least fundamentally, that the ideology that links all of these cells together with some member states like Iran and Libya could give impetus for these unprovoked attacks.

It seems some men cannot help themselves but to continue to give more credence to the actions of men than the doctrines of their 'gods' which compel those actions. It is also clear that the academic investment necessary to truly understand this simple point will never be made at the behest of any Federal agency even though it provides a very specific and accurate understanding of the "why" in these attacks. At least an honest academic debate about Islam would help render a more coherent statement than the mushy love-fest we witnessed this past Sunday on Meet the Press. It might also take this part of the discussion off the table long enough for Congress to ask the truly important questions, like what the CIA was up to in Benghazi, what compelled Stevens, the US Ambassador to Libya, to meet with a Turkish Emissary thirteen hours away from the Embassy, what connection there might be between this event and the Libyan flagged Vessel Al Entisar laden with ill-gotten weapons just weeks before the attack.

You know, little things that actually affect US National Security and any vestige of righteousness which might yet remain in the United States of America.

And why does this matter? Because somewhere in the musty corners of this misguided Administration festers the next vile plan which includes the unwarranted killing of more American Service members for some yet to be revealed and dubious effort.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Reason in the Age of the Flail-Ex


I once heard a quote attributed to Aristotle that says; "The Law is Reason, Free from Passion". While this may be the theoretical desired handling of legal matters, it is never-the-less apparent that only a percentage of any given legal and political population actually practices this.

What we have been witnessing is an era in which the sitting political party has displayed Compassion, Free from Reason. In their effort to "solve" some of the more troubling issues present in all cultures, those of our left-listing brothers and sisters have chosen, rather to adopt a stance known as the "flail-ex".

The Flail-Ex (flailing exercise) is defined as the natural response by some to the recognition of a condition, problem or symptom of a general breakdown in what they consider the natural order. It is characterized by a simple wringing of hands to the more flamboyant flailing of arms and legs accompanied by verbal outbursts of hysteric utterances generally exclaiming; "Oh God, Oh God, what are we to do?"

What typically follows are emotional remonstrances leading to not very well thought out edicts, legislation and restrictions which always come with a heavy price tag and almost never solve the actual problem.  The Affordable Care Act aka ACA, aka Obamacare is nothing more than the most recent example of this.  The ACA is the spasmodic attempt to rectify a perceived shortcoming in health insurance among the poor which the flailer defines as a lack of health care.

The left is always trying to solve the problem of poverty and while that desire is commendable, what is not is their insistence that if you disagree with their proposals, you are simply dispassionate and hateful.  It is also curious that they insist on oversimplifying the issue by determining poverty exists because of a disproportionate distribution of "wealth" as though it is a natural resource mined from a finite source within the earth.

But the most relevant reason they seem intent to tear down our entire society and reconstruct it, is because their perception of poverty is diametrically opposed to those thinking with the other side of the brain.

Poverty for the conservative minded individual is a temporary condition which may require reconsideration of how you conduct your business to improve your lot in life while the liberal sees poverty as an incurable disease, like cancer, which also requires an eternal injection of money into each individual case.

The result of the enactment of the several programs flinched into existence to reactively "treat" poverty is several generations of people who have come to believe their condition is in fact incurable and that it is someone else's responsibility to simply carry them - not help them. The sitting party has done a remarkable job convincing the ever burgeoning, left-listing voting block to keep them in power simply by promising to give them that continual infusion of money and trinkets as an answer to their "incurable" condition.

This same inexplicably corrupted vision of both the human and cultural condition affects every vestige of thought and vision as the liberal mind looks around the globe. It has certainly affected our foreign policy and especially as it affects conduct on these current battlefields.

Within 6 months of the World Trade Center attack, the flailers were already mounting arguments that the culprits were not in fact Al Qaida agents but the US government which detonated pre-staged explosives at least in building 7. That particular theory never fully explained how the aircraft which hit the towers managed to be on site precisely at the moment the government determined to detonate their treasonous load but that was hardly important. What was important was insuring that a spark of doubt was placed within the minds of those voters most likely to buy into the theory and do one of two things; sit out elections or vote for the other party. While the momentum of anger toward our Islamic brethren fueled the conservative voting block in the short run, by the end of George Bush's second term, the conservatives were prepared to sit one out while the flail-ex crowd, was energized.

At about the same time complaints began emitting from various segments of society decrying the unreasonable and hate filled speech toward the Ummah. As time has marched on, those complaints have found a home in all of the suspect acronym bearing "human rights" organizations which have since worked overtime to correct any actual or perceived injustices done to the Ummah by out of control Americans seeking justice. These complaints also found a willing ear in a new President in November of 2008 and the damage that combination has yielded has bled out a generation both figuratively and literally.

Recently concerns have been raised that Muslim G-Grade Officers were being assigned positions within the Pentagon; the concern being that a Muslim Officer, could incongruously affect policy that will affect future strategy and ROE decisions for our War Fighters in future engagements. What these concerns fail to consider is that it had already happened during President Obama's first year in Office.

The flail-ex created by the perceived irrational national distrust of Islam and its adherents found its way into the DOD and compromised the proper decision making ability of the then Deputy Secretary of Defense who inserted himself into an assessment process designed to reconsider our posture in Afghanistan. The result was a "cleansed" assessment which produced a highly controversial strategy, Counter Insurgency which always yields a lethal ROE. The number of tragedies associated with the introduction of COIN and its natural child, a rigid ROE are too numerous to name and I have written about them in previous entries spanning the past nearly five years.

Another example of Passion without Reason is General Amos reacting out of irrational anger and trying to influence the actions of the JAG Officers responsible for investigating and eventually trying the USMC Snipers accused of urinating on the corpses of the demonically inspired enemy they had killed in an earlier engagement.

Would any Marine Corps Officer lash out irresponsibly and unprofessionally at men in his command for a perceived breach in ethics like this under normal circumstances? Unlikely, but add the tension introduced into the situation by the wailing and flailing crowd who hold the bodies of a gaggle of dead, non-uniformed dirt bags over that of the well-being of American Marines facing the inhuman acts of these 7th century heathens and you have the recipe for yet one more example of passion running amok, dictating political and legal action to the detriment of those these very institutions should naturally hope to defend.

Frankly I couldn't care less how the health care debacle turns out in the short run. The fact is, the present model is as unsustainable as the present application of Social Security funding and both will fall into disarray if our current crop of DC Miscreants doesn't get their several parts wired straight.

But I do care about the unhinged meanderings of the flail-ex crowd because without Reason, there is little hope that either their hysteria or their reactive legislation will produce anything of lasting value. In the case of decisions being made within the Pentagon based on veiled whispers emanating from the White House and their appointees, the end result has been and will continue to be devastating for the several Services and those who serve.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard