Last Minute Survival

Steve Gunn’s article on his experience being unconstitutionally (that means illegally) targeted by TSA is one of many.  Fortunately, he wasn’t intimidated and stuck up for himself.  However, standing up for yourself against bullies, at least initially, always draws even greater harassment by the blue suited goons.  All Americans need to stand up to this tyranny and broadly push back against the trashing of our 4th Amendment protections.

Like Steve, one of our staff writers had a similar experience recently flying out of Dulles Airport.  It was approximately a month ago during the heat wave in DC when temperatures soared to near 110 degrees.  Our writer had just arrived into the security screening area after carrying heavy luggage from the long-term parking and negotiating a tedious check in.  Naturally, he was sweating and apparently, sweating is a threat indicator for TSA since he soon found himself approached and being questioned by a simpleton wearing a TSA uniform.  TSA’s brainiac began the conversation with “so I noted you are sweating.  Why would you be sweating.”  Our writer promptly fired back with “have you been outside today?  It is 110 degrees!”  Looking dumbfounded, the TSA person began to give reasons why he needed to question our writer for sweating…none of them made any sense.  Our writer pointed out that it was absurd and useless to use that as an indicator on a hot day when literally everyone was pouring with sweat.  He also asked why he, a clean-cut, well dressed, middle-aged caucasian was singled out.  The TSA person never answered his questions and our writer was soon given a full pat down and swab.  After clearing this screening, he was released on his way after a 15 minute unnecessary delay.  Nonetheless, if everyone “opted out,” TSA would be forced to change its ways or cause total gridlock at the airports.  We hope our readers will take these examples, not be intimidated, and just say no.  Stand up for yourself, your rights, and demand your lawmakers and airlines act to protect your freedoms against invasive unconstitutional government actions.

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/muskegon/index.ssf/2012/08/steve_gunn_37.html

In just one more example of how gun control doesn’t work.  Chicago, a city with near complete,unconstitutional gun control has some of the worst gun violence in the country.  In spite of this, the city’s mayor still refuses to loosen gun regulations.  In effect this forces millions of innocent Chicago residents to live in fear around the clock.  As the city’s murder statistics show, the city is completely unable to deal with the crime and protect innocent lives.  It’s time Chicago’s mayor does something and allow citizens to stop living in fear and legally defend themselves.  Demand Chicago relax its gun control laws now…after all, it can’t get any worse Rahm!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-shootings-chicago-violence-august-23-august-24-violence-gunfire-20120823,0,49779.story

The Washington Times has a nice summary of the garbage published by the Small Wars Journal (SJA):  http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/7/the-civil-war-of-2016/

For those that don’t know the story, a senior militar officer teamed up with a historian recently to publish an article detailing how the US military could be used to conduct combat operations against Americans.  The fact that the Pentagon brass is wasting their time wargaming scenarios for the domestic use of military force means it is absolutely on their agenda and is chilling. It is disturbing colonels are more concerned with turning guns on Americans than say the North Koreans.  The fact the writers used the “Tea Party,” a group that has never committed a single act of violence or suggested one is very telling.  Instead of using a more likely scenario such as a region of the south-west breaks away and claims it is now a part of Mexico or some left-wing eco-terrorists take over an area, they intentionally chose to fabricate and perpetuate a political storyline and stereotype.  What’s worse is that the underlying cause for the use of military force is a citizens revolt against the excesses of a tyrannical government and the military’s answer seems to default to brutally cracking down on it.  This is ironic in light of how our media has painted the peoples’ wars against dictators in Egypt, Libya, and Syria as just and worthy of our military’s support.  It would appear then that our military now serves to topple foreign dictators for freedom except when it’s the United States government in question.  There should be no doubt that this article was submitted to test the acceptance level within the military ranks to the idea of conducting offensive combat operations against Americans.

As I read this article in the SWJ, one obvious conclusion became apparent about the senior DoD thinkers.  Specifically, the brass apparently has learned NOTHING from the last decade of fighting insurgencies around the globe.  Even the suggestion the proper course of action to deal with civil disorder should be a full military combat operation is absurd.  It is probably the worst course of action unless you want to spark a full civil war or at least a full-blown insurgency.  Apparently, the generals think it wise to try to promote jobs and build infrastructure in Afghanistan to overcome and insurgency, but in their backyard, the answer is to shoot our citizens now.

The authors also seem to disregard the impact of a well armed American population and that the military still has plenty of independent people who will not follow orders and bear allegiance to the “continuity of government” and instead, keep their oath to the “Constitution” and to protect this country from all enemies, foreign and “domestic.”  One should note a subtle but important distinction between enlisted and officer oaths.  The enlisted are sworn to follow orders, but the officers are not and in fact have an explicit duty not to follow unlawful orders.  Usurpers and tyrants are the historical enemies of Americans…NOT the people.  Anyone that tries to pervert that concept and flip it on its head is the enemy Colonel!

If the order is given to attack citizens, the military will fracture…and thankfully so.  Some will no doubt say aye aye and pull the trigger.  Those brainless idiots will not only sign their own death warrants, but guarantee the implosion of our once great nation.  Turning the U.S. military on the civilian population would cause some units to defect completely…many of them will be of your best trained and equipped fighters to include many of your special operations forces, officers, and pilots, which are almost exclusively a club of educated, highly motivated, well-informed, men with conservative views.  If given the order, the military will most likely initially go along with the plan and then fracture once American citizens start to be killed.  Even some of our best cyber geeks have a near anarchist streak in them that suggest the government’s plan to spy on an insurgency also run quickly into problems.  The cyber spying will initially work, but soon will alienate many and morph into the insurgency spying on the government spying on them.  This is the evolution you see again and again in insurgencies from around the world.  The defections of senior Syrian leaders is just one example of this in contemporary times.  It’s easy to use your military against other nations and peoples, but much more difficult when used domestically and the soldiers realize their brother, mother, or friend is the one that is in a detention facility, cordoned town, or shot dead by an 18-year-old that was told he was doing what was necessary to maintain continuity of government.

You should have no doubt that if the brass are writing on this from the war colleges, they are seriously contemplating the action.  A dedication of professional time to it alone constitutes a traitorous act of sedition from within the military, but in practice is an undoubted litmus test for the readiness of the military to turns its guns on the homeland.  The officer corps needs to be cognizant of this treachery and collectively and intellectually make it well-known that in no way shape or form would they consent to these actions as acceptable or legal and would not follow any orders of the such as they are illegal and illegitimate.  This needs to transcend to operations policy and plans as well as down to the doctrine at the tactical level.  Unless our officers educate our 18 year olds that their Constitutional oath does not cover killing Americans to protect a regime…in fact the exact opposite, they have failed in their responsibilities.

Wounded Soldier in Afghanistan

Today’s headlines once again announce the death of another 7 Americans in Afghanistan and as many more local nationals.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/10/world/asia/afghanistan-us-casualties/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

http://news.yahoo.com/three-u-soldiers-killed-uniformed-afghan-helmand-064345412.html

These Americans that died were no ordinary people, but elite special forces advisors, a foreign service officer, and battalion level staff officers and a senior non-commissioned officer. The special forces advisors were killed by the Afghans they were training, the USAID foreign service officer by a roadside bomb, and the majors and a sergeant major by a man wearing a suicide vest. These deaths sadly highlight the spectrum of how little we have accomplished with our trillions of dollars spent over the last decade plus of war. As a veteran of this conflict, it pains me to admit the obvious. The Afghanistan War’s indecisive stalemate can only be honestly described as a strategic defeat for the United States. Simply put, we never had the leadership, will, or strategy to effectively prosecute and win this war. Those still drunk on the Administration’s Kool-Aid will vehemently disagree, but they wouldn’t dare walk from Kandahar to Asadabad with any expectation of survival The reality on the ground is simple. The army left holding the ground is the victory. This army is the Taliban as we retreat out of Afghanistan. Our policy of building a forward operating base, so we can clear the routes to it of improvised bombs, so we can bring supplies to the base, so we can clear routes to it of improvised bombs….etc. etc. etc., has become the quintessential example of the futility of this war and the utter lack of a viable, winning strategy.

Making these statements requires some justification and history so allow me to recap the last few years of the war. As General McChrystal was unceremoniously dismissed and replaced by the much lauded General Petraeus in June of 2010 the media cheered as the savior of Afghanistan had arrived. This is ironic as much of the failing counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy that McChrystal tried so hard to implement was directly from the play book of Petraeus. Nonetheless, General Petraeus wasted no time installing his public relations machinery and implementing “his” counterinsurgency strategy. To begin, he had to spin the much hyped, “government in a box” that had already proved to be better on paper than in practice. The battle for Marjah was the center piece of this strategy and was far from going well. In fact, the Taliban had simply done what guerilla fighters do and quietly dispersed into the surrounding areas and then reconstituted where NATO forces were now spread thin as a result of concentrating troops in Helmand Province. This situation caused a near immediate destabilization of surrounding regions once considered “immunized” in the words of David Kilcullen, who had been the “COIN Whisperer” at the General’s side for most of the war.

Unfortunately, for the troops on the ground and the Afghan people, Kilcullen should have spent more time in actual combat instead of analyzing peacekeeping operations with staff officers. Further, contrary to how Kilcullen inflates or perhaps distorts his record, ridealongs in Afghanistan and Iraq don’t count as combat as any veteran will tell you. Not surprisingly, the war in Afghanistan has continued to drag on without any decisive outcome irrespective of the great General Petraeus’ intervention. As the bodies and bills piled up though for the United States, Kilcullen and Petraeus continued to rake in the fame as the ground truth in Afghanistan was whitewashed from the public. In fact, casualties hit record numbers during Petraeus’ tenure. Even worse, Americans were being told with celebration how the Afghans had taken control of greater and greater areas. However, what was actually going on would have been more honestly stated as handing over territory we couldn’t control to the Taliban. Even Petraeus’ premium placed on training the Afghan army and police was an abysmal failure. According to a recent GAO study, barely 10% of the Afghan units are mission capable even to this day and this is only after the Defense Department had to redefine the definition of a “capable” unit as “independent with advisors” that could call for support. Considering that our advisors are going home and the only support that 10% can call on will be the 90% incapable of independent operation, the outlook for Afghanistan looks bleak. This is especially true when you consider the Taliban has done just fine surviving the onslaught of the most powerful military in this world’s history without advisors or support! This is the same game plan the Soviets laid out to cover their retreat and it will end no differently.

Seeing the writing on the wall, the prescient political general skipped town with his entourage to takeover as the Director of the CIA leaving an indecisive mess to blame on his predecessors that looks worse now than it did in 2001. In speaking with senior policy makers involved in the war strategy, I was told that the people working this were “brilliant and trying very hard” as if that made up for the thousands of dead and wounded in vain. I was also told there were “no good solutions” as if their inability to develop a working strategy was accented by an elitist mentality that assumed no one else was capable since they failed. In the world of business, that type of answer usually gets one fired and replaced with someone who can do the job rather quickly…not so for the U.S. Government. What’s worse is that even when confronted with hard facts the senior officials change the subject and refuse to acknowledge the reality, seemingly disappearing into their own make believe worlds for comfort. For example, why we didn’t secure the Afghanistan-Pakistan border? Many studies have been done proving a COIN strategy focused on border security vice training and advising would have been quick, simple, and effective saving countless lives and dollars. Further, border security is the only strategy with a rock-solid, proven historical precedent for delivering decisive gains against cross-border insurgencies like we are fighting in Afghanistan. Training and advising have never shown to provide decisive strategic outcomes against this type of insurgency as any well read historian would quickly realize, but this glaring fact was seemingly missed by the “brilliant” folks in charge.

This brings us back to the gut wrenching reality of the seven dead Americans that this Administration desperately wants to make inconsequential when in reality, it represents everything. This “everything is fine” whitewash till the November election is a blatant insult to the duty and lives of those dead. Our political leaders are made up of two types. The idiots that are drinking the Kool-Aid and actually believe we have accomplished something in Afghanistan and the liars that are mixing the Kool-Aid. To help you see through the smoke screen ask some hard questions that I have repeatedly pointed out year after year. “If,” the Taliban were so bad we had to declare them terrorists and dive headfirst into a decade long war costing trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of wounded and killed, then how can we now pull out when they are more powerful, more numerous, and control more territory than they did in 2001? For those die-hard Kool-Aid drinkers, if you think the government has returned peace and order to Afghanistan, you are welcome to test your theory personally. Go buy a ticket and have a fun time walking cross-country as an American tourist…just make sure you name me in your government life insurance plan before you go! On the other hand, if in fact, the Taliban are not really that big of a threat after all and can be left alone, then how can we justify the war was ever necessary in the first place? Simple logic will tell you someone is lying to the American people AGAIN. Using the previous quoted retort from a senior policy maker, there is not a good answer to either question. Either A, they were a threat and will remain an even greater threat after our pull out or B, they never were a threat and the post 9/11 wars were nothing but a sham for the biggest power grab ever by our government, erosion of your civil liberties and rights to next to nothing, and the enrichment of a very few. So I ask, which is it?