Why did McChrystal do this to our troops?
Captain Thoreen concedes, “It’s a framework to ensure cultural sensitivity in planning and executing operations. It’s a set of rules and could be characterized as part of the ROE.” In other words, the Obama military establishment is running a damn PR campaign, not a war! They’re more concerned about cultural seeeeensitivity than getting the job done—which is no way to win. Thoreen adds, “For our guys, it’s tough. Sometimes they feel they have their hands tied behind their backs.”9
Need proof? In an article entitled, “Strict rules slowing offensive, troops say,” the reporter covering a battle in Marja, Afghanistan swerves into the ugly truth of this untenable situation:
If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon—or if they did not personally watch him drop one. What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out
of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location.
Tell me that isn’t crazy. Tell me that’s not a formula for disaster. Why must our men hold their fire? Isn’t killing the enemy the whole point? Not so, as this reporter goes on to explain:
NATO and Afghan military officials say killing militants is not the goal of a 3-day-old attack to take control of this Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan. The more important focus is to win public support.10
If we’re intent on playing with the enemy as some sort of goodwill gesture, where does that leave our troops? In short, we have a military that’s about as threatening as a candy striper passing out flowers to the sick. As Captain Sam Rico, of the Division’s 4–25 Field Artillery Battalion, puts it, “You get shot at but can do nothing about it. You have to see the person with the weapon. It’s not enough to know which house the shooting’s coming from.”11 Why must our soldiers fight with such oppressive handicaps in the heat of a battle? All in the name of winning “public support”? That’s an outrage!
What’s more, if our men are not permitted to search women for weapons, which is one of the Karzai ROE, that creates a dangerous Catch—22. As the Washington Times points out: “Because of the Karzai 12 rules, U.S. forces have had to bring in American women to conduct searches of their Afghan counterparts.” I thought America had a policy forbidding women in combat? As one soldier explains, “It’s OK for the insurgents to use their women to hide weapons but it’s not OK for us [men] to search them. So now, we have to break our own rules and bring women into combat just so they can search the women.”12
That’s the price we’re paying to fight a war according to rules laid out by college leftists on a pot high who now run the military! Instead of creating reasonable rules of engagement that protect our troops, they spend their time poring over complicated PowerPoint presentations created by independent contractors who have little or no experience facing the heat of battle.
One such convoluted PowerPoint slide—featuring hundreds of arrows in eight different colors, swirling in every direction—was designed to “inform” the top military brass about the complex relationships in Afghanistan. It was so baffling, General McChrystal said, “When we understand that slide, we’ll have won the war.”13
This complete waste of taxpayer money was created by the PA Consulting Group because the military is being run by incompetent leftists who think they are still attending college seminars and need such data. By the way, I had requested permission to reprint the diagram in my book, but they denied my request citing “client confidentiality purposes” for “any use of the diagram.” I pointed out that it was already featured in newspapers around the world. That didn’t matter to them. (You can view the chart at the Daily Mail online: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1269463/Afghanistan-PowerPoint-slide-Generals-left-baffled-PowerPoint-slide.html.)
Let’s set that aside.
The larger point is that these absurd rules of engagement put America’s troops at war with themselves. How? If they shoot before being shot at, they risk disciplinary action. If they wait to shoot before being shot at, they risk dying. If you think this isn’t happening, think again. In March, 2010, a reporter for the Associated Press, whose name is unimportant, reports:
The number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan has roughly doubled in the first three months of 2010 compared to the same period last year as Washington has added tens of thousands of additional soldiers to reverse the Taliban’s momentum. Those deaths have been accompanied by a dramatic spike in the number of wounded, with injuries more than tripling in the first two months of the year and trending in the same direction based on the latest available data for March.
This reporter completely misses the point. It’s not the presence of additional troops—which he obviously opposes since liberals don’t have a stomach for war—that accounts for the increase wounded. Rather, the spike in casualties has everything to do with the rules of engagement that make our men sitting ducks. He goes on further to misrepresent reality: “A rise in the number of wounded—a figure that draws less attention than deaths—shows that the Taliban remain a formidable opponent.”14 Wrong. They are not a “formidable” foe.
No, about the only credit that can be given to the Taliban is that they’re just smart enough to use our ROE against us. Look at how blatantly the Taliban leverages their advantage, as this editorial in the Washington Times demonstrates:
In Marjah, the enemy quickly adapted to the rules, which led to bizarre circumstances such as Taliban fighters throwing down their weapons when they were out of ammunition and taunting coalition troops with impunity or walking in plain view with women behind them carrying their weapons like caddies. If World War II had been fought with similar rules, the battles would still be raging. Paradoxically, America’s most successful post-conflict reconstructions were in Germany and Japan, where enemy-occupied towns like Marjah were flattened without a second thought.15
General McChrystal thinks being seeeeeensitive to the locals is a strategy worth the risk to our soldiers: “Destroying a home or property jeopardizes the livelihood of an entire family—and creates more insurgents. We sow the seeds of our own demise.”16 Others see things differently. Take retired Army colonel Doug Macgregor, a military historian who sees the futility of such actions: “You surrender whatever military advantage you have by compelling the U.S. conventional soldier or Marine to fight on terms that favor the enemy, not the American soldier or Marine.”17
In the end, our boys are dying unnecessarily. Do we really want more body bags filled with American’s young men because we were afraid of hurting the feeeeelings of the locals? I say it’s time to take off the handcuffs and let our military finish the job or get the hell out of Afghanistan. Start unleashing the full force and might of the American military on the Taliban, and get the job done or leave.
In the words of General George S. Patton: “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” Patton wouldn’t be playing this peek-a-boo game with the Taliban swine. He wouldn’t have hesitated using air power to flatten and pulverize the rat holes where these vermin hide.
America needs more Patton … and less patent leather.
Obama the Destroyer
At the outset of this book, I described Barack Obama as a destructive child who, in his ignorance, takes apart a watch and cannot put it back together. With regard to his reckless dismantling of our military, there’s no quick solution to rebuild it. If, and when, this child president wakes up one morning and finds America under attack, it will be too late to start rebuilding what he has torn down. Why do I say this?
On April 8, 2010, Obama the Destroyer attacked America’s sovereignty and safety by signing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in Prague, Czech Republic, with Russian President Medvedev. Let’s not mince words. This treaty is the work of the mentally disordered Left. If the U.S. Senate
ratifies the treaty, America will have to slash our nuclear arsenal by 33 percent while cutting in half the number of missiles, the submarine fleet, and our strategic bombers that deliver them.
You might want to read that again.
As bad as these cuts are in terms of our national security, the Obama regime has further handcuffed America’s position on how we can use what few nuclear weapons we still posses. As detailed in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), “the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.” In other words, if we’re attacked with chemical or biological weapons by Russia, Obama has promised he won’t retaliate with nuclear weapons as long as Russia is “in compliance” with the START treaty.
That’s insane.
Likewise, as one columnist points out, “if some terrorist group linked to a Middle Eastern country murders millions of Americans by blowing up domestic nuclear power plants or through germ warfare, such as with anthrax, a nuclear retaliatory strike is off-limits.”18 Tell me Obama’s reckless NPR policy won’t embolden our adversaries. The president is backing America into an obscure corner rather than stepping out with strength onto the world stage. What’s more, as this columnist rightly observes, “His delusions may play well with the liberal press corps. But in the real world—the world of Chinese militarism, Russian gangsterism, Iranian adventurism and Islamist imperialism—he is viewed as the caretaker of a declining hyperpower.”19
By these rules, we would still be fighting Japan in the Pacific!
Here’s what Obama the Naive has clearly forgotten.
One reason America got rid of her chemical and biological weapons is that we were told that we would always have the nuclear deterrent available. And now, thanks to this feckless president, we don’t have that option. The Enemy Within is very sly. Over the years, this anti-nuke, anti-military Enemy Within has said, “Oh, you can get rid of your chemical and biological weapons, America, because you have so many nukes. You can always attack a country that attacks you with chemical and biological weapons. You don’t need chemical or biological weapons yourself. You can use your nukes.”
Now we find out that we can’t even use our nukes because Obama the Destroyer has taken that option off the table—with the exception of North Korea and Iran. This is unsettling news to Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom believe Obama’s nuclear stance is a sign of weakness and sets the stage for an attack on our soil. According to one poll taken after President Obama announced his new NPR position, “Sixty percent of Americans said they think it is likely Obama’s new policy pronouncement will result in attacks on the U.S.”20
Why am I not entirely surprised that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton takes the Obama view? Clinton praised the news as “a good day for America and our security” because “we do not need such large arsenals.”21
We don’t need such large arsenals? Nonsense!
This nuclear disarmament is on top of the fact that Obama has already put a wrecking ball to the defense budget and stopped a comprehensive missile defense system for our allies in Europe. Now, in the name of diplomacy and his race to turn us into a third-rate military power on par with Krapistan, Obama the Destroyer is destroying our nuclear capacity precisely when Iran and North Korea are building up their nuclear capabilities and China is racing to develop more advanced, nuclear-armed submarines. While Obama is axing away at our missile defense, China is working overtime to build up its missile defense system. In January, 2010, the Chinese military conducted a successful test launch of an ABM interceptor missile. What’s more, according to one report, China is working on long-range missiles capable of hitting the United States. The reporter observed, “As soon as China has its missile defense system, it will win the status of a global superpower which no one will be allowed to ignore.”22 Why is Obama ignoring this buildup? Does this seem like the right time for our president to be making cuts in this vital part of our strategic defense?
Meanwhile, restlessness resides within the European Union. Calls for a joint EU international army are being made by Italy’s Foreign Minister Franco Frattini. Even though the EU is a political union, fears that America will betray their allies are in the region. I don’t blame them for that considering the ways our president has snubbed a number of our long-time partners around the world, most notably Israel. Take, for instance, the time President Obama walked out of a meeting at the White House with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Remember that humiliation? An Israeli newspaper described the encounter as “a hazing in stages.”23
Aside from the embarrassing treatment of our allies, which send distressing signals to other allies, “experts say that the creation of the common European force is good for Russia. Russia supposedly used its friendly relations with Italy and initiated Frattini’s statement to distract the EU from the USA and move forward with the implementation of Medvedev’s plans connected with the creation of the European security system.”24 With such dangerous unrest in the world, America must maintain a vigorous defense.
Obama is naïve. This inexperienced man believes the START treaty will, like sprinkling pixie dust on the heart of the axis of evil, coax North Korea and Iran into discontinuing their nuclear programs. Obama actually said, “With this agreement, the United States and Russia—the two largest nuclear powers in the world—also send a clear signal that we intend to lead.”25 That’s laughable. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the fascist dictator and Hitler of Iran, wants these weapons to intimidate the United States and to annihilate Israel.
Does Obama really think a meaningless piece of paper will stop Ahmadinejad who called Israel the “most cruel and repressive racist regime”?26 Has Obama forgotten Iran’s Hitler said that Israel “must be wiped out from the map of the world”?27 How about this one from the little Iranian bully: “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”28 What, is Obama nuts? How can he believe that cutting our nuclear warheads will create a kinder, gentler Junior Hitler? And what about our friends in Russia?
Anyone who believes they’ll keep their word is a few fries short of a happy meal. Russia has a long history of reneging on agreements, including nuclear agreements. That’s number one. What’s more, it’s impossible to verify how many they’ve destroyed. Toss in the fact that the Russians have already signaled that they can pull out of the agreement at any time, and you have a lose-lose situation as far as American interests are concerned.
Obama signed it anyway.
Need I point out that most of Russia’s nuclear arsenal is aging and outdated? Without the treaty, the Russians would have had to spend a fortune updating their nuclear arsenal just to keep pace with us. If we didn’t agree to take apart our nukes, Russia would fade as a nuclear power because it would be too costly to stay in our league. Instead, they can just scrap the most antiquated weapons in their stockpiles to meet the requirements of START. Whether or not our president wants to admit this, his nuclear agreement actually helps Russia because now they don’t have to upgrade those useless missiles.
There’s more to this madness. Obama is far from finished.
After signing the START treaty, look at what Obama the Destroyer announced to the world: “It is just one step on a longer journey. As I said last year in Prague, this treaty will set the stage for further cuts. And, going forward, we hope to pursue discussions with Russia on reducing both our strategic and tactical weapons, including non-deployed weapons.”29 Further cuts? Why? Because Obama has a long history of working to disarm America’s nuclear capability. It’s one of his core beliefs and lifelong aspirations.
Let me take you back to 1983.
At the time, Obama was a twenty-two-year-old college student at Columbia University. Although most of his college records and papers have been sealed, hidden or, more likely, destroyed, Obama penned an article for the campus newspaper, which has recently surfaced. In his
article entitled, “Breaking the War Mentality,” the young Obama sided with the antinuke/nuclear freeze camp and wrote of pursuing “a peace that is genuine, lasting and non-nuclear.”30 In other words, this man is a college radical who is implementing every imagined academic leftist, give-peace-a-chance experiment.
We all know that college is a season in life when kids will banter about fanciful solutions to a world they hardly understand. But it’s one thing to sit around waxing eloquent about various extreme notions of pan-Leninism with your college buddies posited by your Marxist-Leninist professors. It’s quite another to endanger the lives of millions of Americans and our allies around the world by pursuing such fantasies. The sandbox of the ivory tower can be a dangerous place when brought to the arena of national security.
I must ask the deeper question that nobody is asking.
We’re not at war with Russia, are we?
Isn’t Russia our friend?
If Russia is our friend, then why do they need us to cut our nuclear arsenal? If they’re our friend, and if they have no harmful intentions toward us, why do we need to cut our nuclear arsenal to convince them that we’re their friend? After all, we’re trading partners with this former Cold War enemy. The Russians export oil and petroleum products, aluminum, semi-finished iron and steel, precious metals, and railway equipment among other things to us. United flies in there every day. Delta flies in there the last I checked.
Why, then, is our President suddenly signing a peace treaty with Russia when we’re not at war with them?
If we had been at war and the hostilities had ceased, it would be understandable to craft some sort of postwar arrangement that included the disarming of various weapons. Remember what Germany had to do after World War I? At the Treaty of Versailles, the Germans had to abandon their Air Force. They had to shrink the size of their Navy by sinking most of their fleet. They were forbidden to have any submarines, tanks, or even armored cars. Why? Because they lost the war and those were the terms hammered out by the Allied Forces. If they hadn’t lost, do you think the Germans would have laid down their weapons and compromised their defenses?
Trickle Up Poverty: Stopping Obama’s Attack on Our Borders, Economy, and Security Page 33
