Iran has been much in the news lately, with its atomic bomb, er, energy program, its nuclear scientist short lifespan, its “Close the Strait of Hormuz” exercise, its telling the US that an aircraft carrier had better not come back into the Persian Gulf, and its test firing of a home built missile. So I thought a look at its internal politics may prove interesting.

The power struggle in Iran between the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, could lead to Ahmadinejad’s resignation. It was predictable that when Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi resigned (or was dismissed) from Ahmadinejad’s cabinet in April, 2011, it would be costly for Ahmadinejad. The extent of the damage for Ahmadinejad’s defiance of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is now becoming clear. According to the Tehran Etedaal newspaper, several people close to Ahmadinejad and his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, have been arrested by security services. Moslehi defied Ahmadinejad by being more loyal to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Got that? It has always been difficult to be a player in Iranian politics/religion.

The attack on the British embassy in Tehran in November, 2011, by Iranian “youths” is another example of this situation. Ali Larijani, speaker of the Iranian parliament, condemned Great Britain and said that the action of Iranian “youth” was reflecting the view of all Iranians. This line had to have been transmitted through Khamenei’s office that already supported the embassy attack as “the people’s reaction” to Britain’s hostile economic action (sanctions).

Ahmadinejad attempted to undermine Larijani, a political competitor and possible presidential candidate in 2013. Ahmadinejad took a big political chance and went against the already established line by opposing the diplomatic sanctions already called for against Great Britain. A more cynical interpretation of the Iranian president’s tactic would suggest he recognizes that Ayatollah Khamenei does not support him or his political future, and in consequence Ahmadinejad decided to seek political support from the more moderate elements in Iranian politics. His turning to those who represent a less confrontational wing of Iran’s political life may be his only hope of continuing to remain a major player.

From a practical point of view the internal security service of VEVAK, the al Quds force within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the Council of Guardians are the operative instruments of Ayatollah Khamenei that hold the physical and ideological reins of power. If an individual or group seeks to wrest power from the existing structure militarily, judicially, or politically, they seemingly have an insurmountable obstacle to overcome. If a politician (in this case Ahmadinejad) takes a line contrary to that which is generally approved by the supreme leader’s office, but can point to a form of consent from one of the power centers (in this case, the Council of Guardians), he has covered himself.

The ultimate question then becomes whether or not Ayatollah Ali Khamenei can remain as the supreme leader, and the answer is in the hands of the religious hierarchy, not the electoral process. And the answer to this question has some very real implications for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Just what the rest of the world needs – a political power struggle in Iran while it develops nuclear weapons and buys delivery systems from North Korea.

But that’s just my opinion.

Rush Limbaugh blasts Ron Paul as the Conservative Killer:

…the majority of people that voted him were not Republican. And in another poll, the percentage of Ron Paul voters who say they will vote for the Republican nominee is… like 80% of Tea Party voters in New Hampshire said no matter who the Republican nominee is they’re voting for it. The Ron Paul number is 40%. Now, as I say, I’ve gotta double confirm. It’s ostensibly Rasmussen and we’re double-checking this, but what I know so far, or what I’ve been told is that Ron Paul supporters, 40% say they would vote for the Republican nominee, 23% said they’d vote for Obama, and 31% of Ron Paul voters said they would vote third party. So the Ron Paul voters cannot be counted on, and most of Huntsman’s voters and most of Paul’s voters were Democrats who walked into the New Hampshire primary, picked up a Republican ballot, also according to this polling data.

…Here we go. It’s the exit polling data from Fox, and it is on political matters, “Do you consider yourself very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, very conservative?” You go to Ron Paul, 33% of his voters, according to exit polls, were somewhat liberal; 24% were moderate; 0 were very liberal. So 57% of the voters that voted for Ron Paul were not Republican conservatives. And that’s one of the things that I wanted to see because with this big push — what is happening here, the final push now that’s on to get Romney the nomination, Newt and Perry, with their attacks, have made it impossible to defend them. I hate to tell you, folks, but you just can’t put your name to what they’re out there saying, vulture capitalism and so forth.

Romney, however, wants Ron Paul to stay in. Everybody is urging everybody else to get out of this except for Ron Paul. They want Ron Paul to keep pounding away at Santorum and Newt. They want Ron Paul to continue to get big numbers and take away any high second- or third-place finishes from Santorum or Gingrich or Perry or anybody else. So the powers that be realize the monkey wrench that Ron Paul represents. Ron Paul is a conservative killer. Ron Paul kills the conservative vote, and the Romney camp wants him in there, encouraging him to stay in there.

So 40% of Paul voters said they would go on to support the eventual Republican nominee. 40%!

Where’s the other 60% going to go? Apparently Obama.

While 80% of the tea-party voters will support WHOEVER the Republican nominee is.

That should tell us a whole lot about Ron Paul and his supporters. They cannot be counted on to push the Republicans to victory in 2012. The only thing Ron Paul can guarantee is to kill off Santorum and Newt’s chances.

With that I’ll segue into the John Gibson show yesterday in which Gibson asked Ron Paul supporters to call in and give him reasons why he is so awesome: (its 15 minutes well spent?)

And hey, guess who else loves themselves some Ron Paul?

The Iranian regime’s English language propaganda channel, PressTV, has discovered a new American idol: presidential contender Rep. Ron Paul.

PressTV has stepped up its coverage of Paul’s campaign to win the Republican presidential nomination in recent weeks, featuring his anti-Israel rants, his claim that sanctions against Iran are “acts of war,” his approval of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and much more.

The Iranian government channel portrays Ron Paul as an American hero, and brings on conspiracy theorists masquerading as political “analysts” to laud him for “challenging the American establishment” and the “corporate neo-conservative Zionist consensus,” that cabal of Jews, banksters, and Reagan Democrats who in Tehran’s eyes (and in the eyes of these Ron Paul supporters) run the world.

It’s a script taken almost word-for-word from the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

So go ahead Paulbots….vote for Ron Paul, or Obama when RP doesn’t get the nomination but I will never pull the lever for this nut.

While we’re waiting for Iowa to make up their minds as to a possible Obama opponent, it may behoove us to examine just what repercussions of Obama’s Pakistan foreign policy lie in store for the US and our national security. Yes yes… I’m well aware that foreign policy is triaged way down in the electorate’s mind in import. At least when it comes to specific day-to-day events. But there is no doubt that our national security does still remain an important campaign issue… even if not at the top of the voters’ radar. So this is a worthy debate, even if not as “sexy” a topic these days.

The summary? Zardari is on his way out – early – and there’s a three way frontal assault for new leadership of the nuke-armed nation. Pakistan has grown extremely anti-American with the average of a drone strike over Pakistani soil every four days – 291 total, and 236 of them under this POTUS alone, the invasion of sovereign territory – sans permission – to get UBL (as promised by candidate Obama), and the pièce de résistance, the NATO “oops” attack that killed 24 Pakistan soldiers. And as CJ, FA’s boots-on-the-ground in Afghanistan reports, they’ve already begun exacting their revenge by slashing US supply lines to our troops in Afghanistan.

So exactly who is Pakistan’s future potential leadership, and are they a potential enemy, or ally of the US? Sorry to report that the outlook isn’t good, with two out of the three declaring, in advance, that the US is no friend to that nation and promising no cooperation as part of their elective appeal. Considering the above referenced events, Obama’s ill-thought foreign policies have left the US extremely unpopular with Pakistanis who will not welcome any input… just as “new and improved” Egypt now states. In fact, it may be quite likely that any functional relationship with Pakistan will be coming to an end.

I’ll start this crash course in a current events perspective with an little noticed press release over the holidays that former Pakistan army chief, General Ziauddin Butt, has charged the Musharraf regime with deliberately harboring Usama Bin Laden, away from the US’s intelligence eyes, in the past holiday week.

Musharraf and Rick Perry, July 2011

Needless to say, Pakistan has all the makings of a Middle East, Islamic psuedo-ally in intel, and offers absolutely no appeal as an enemy. Post Sept 11th, they became that ally under Musharraf…until they were provoked and abused beyond the pale under this POTUS, that is.

Judging by the Commander in Chief’s three years of policy choices, I’d say that Obama does not share my view of Pakistan as a more valuable ally than enemy. While I welcomed the death of UBL, I am on record (and taking much heat for…) my opinion that “…there would be a seriously hefty price for this nation to pay for Bin Laden’s head, if one weighs the cascading repercussions.”

Today, those repercussions are painfully obvious – at least to those paying attention.

Using my approach of Pakistan as more valuable as a friend than enemy, I happened to find this Musharraf accusation of particular interest for many reasons. First, because General Ziauddin – oft referred to as the “genius general” in Pakistan circles – has not been in power in the Pakistani Army since 1999…prior to when UBL would have been in Abbottabad.

So where is his inside scuttlebutt – post power and position – supposedly coming from?

And more importantly, why… now, today…is he deciding to confess this to the free world? If this hiding of UBL by Musharraf’s regime was so important to Ziauddin, what the heck took him so long to come forward?

Nawaz Sharif

And when it comes to Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf, there is even less love lost between those two. I’ll skip that rich-in-detail history for now, but suffice it to say Sharif’s revenge for Musharraf springs eternal.

I will also add any sane American, who stays abreast of Pakistani politics and their repetitive players, knows very well that Nawaz Sharif was, is and remains, a clear and present danger to the US.

Sharif represents some of Pakistan’s most populous areas. Along with that is his alliance and representation of Pakistan’s most radical elements. When Bhutto’s co-architect of the Afghanistan Mullah Omar Talliban – Fazlur Rehman – needed to convey a “truce” offer for the Afghan Taliban, who did he take it to? Nawaz Sharif.

Who is it that cannot bear to criticize the Taliban in the Pakistani press? Nawaz Sharif.

Who supports and has overtly fought for Islam as the rule of the land for Pakistan, and has a “soft corner” for his terrorist/radical base? Nawaz Sharif.

And when Obama’s admin wanted a carrier pigeon/negotiator with the Afghanistan terrorists, who did they woo? Nawaz Sharif.

Fact is, if anyone would know where Osama Bin Laden was hiding out, it would be more likely to be Sharif and his crowd, as Sharif met with Bin Laden three times, requesting financial assistance to hold power in the late 90s.

In September 1999, government officials said, the director general of I.S.I., Lt. Gen. Ziauddin and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was summoned to Washington. American officials told them Pakistan should force the Taliban to moderate their positions and turn over Osama bin Laden. Nawaz Sharif sent General Ziauddin to Kandahar to deliver the American message to Mullah Omar, who refused and next month, on Oct. 12, 1999, Nawaz Sharif was overthrown in a military coup.

Adnkronos International (AKI) reported that former Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif did meet al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden at least three times in order to get financial help, according to Khalid Khawaja, the former official with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). In an exclusive interview with AKI, Khawaja, once a close friend of Osama bin Laden, rejected the statements by a spokesperson for Sharif’s political party, denying that Sharif had sought political cooperation from bin Laden in the past.

“Nawaz Sharif met Osama Bin Laden on at least three occasions and was desperately seeking his financial assistance,” Khawaja told AKI in response to recent news reports regarding a possible meeting between the two.

In an interview with a national Urdu daily, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Amir of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), and of the six party religious alliance MMA, said that Nawaz Sharif had repeatedly met Osama bin Laden who offered him money to buy the loyalties of parliamentarians in the late 1980s in order to topple the government of then prime minister Benazir Bhutto. Qazi also said that bin Laden was a big supporter of Nawaz Sharif’s bid to be prime minister in 1990.

Khalid Khawaja’s name resurfaced when US reporter Daniel Pearl was abducted and subsequently killed. Pearl had come to Pakistan and met Khalid Khawaja in order to investigate the jihadi network of revered sufi, Syed Mubarak Ali Gailani.

“Now after Benazir Bhutto formed her government and the opposition parties moved for a vote of no-confidence, Osama Bin Laden comes in a picture,” Khawaja recalled.

“I still remember that Osama bin Laden provided me with funds, which I handed over to Nawaz Sharif, then the chief minister of Punjab [and later premier], to dislodge Benazir Bhutto. Nawaz Sharif insisted that I arrange a direct meeting with the “Sheikh”, which I did in Saudi Arabia. Nawaz met thrice with Osama in Saudi Arabia.

Tho Sharif, himself, doesn’t currently hold an office in Pakistan’s government today, he is President of the anti-US/pro Islamic fundamentalist party that, along with himself, have been rapidly gaining in popularity since the Zardari election – the Pakistan Muslim League-N. Nor has he shed the desire to again ascend to power, as one could easily derive from his Dec 21st, 2011 demand that Pakistan hold elections early. Considering he’s been pressuring the public for a revolution for months, this can’t come as a surprise.

Is it just mere coincidence that Sharif’s rising popularity, and his demand for early elections, pre’dates General Ziauddin’s accusation against Musharraf by only 2-3 days?

Whether because of health, scandals, or public displeasure with the current elected ones, Pakistan is on the precipice of selecting a new leader. Bhutto’s ex-hubby… President Asif Zardari, who catapulted to victory literally on the grave of his media-sainted wife post assassination… is out of favor, and on his way out prior to the ending of his term. Mourn not… never in the history of that nation has a democratically elected civilian government served out its full term and then been replaced by another one, as we do here in the US. Does that give you a clue as to how susceptible to influences – both internally and internationally – they are?

So why the resurgence of the “dump on Musharraf” mentality by fundamentalist Sharif – via Ziauddin – at a time when few Americans would take notice? That, I believe, is the question that takes precedence over the accusation itself.

And the answer is – Sharif fully intends to use historically stupid western media to influence Pakistan’s future, and imminent, new leader…himself. And it just so happens that two of the three potential leaders includes this unappetizing prospect of a Pakistan, headed up by Sharif. The second of the three is the return of Musharraf, enjoying a resurgence in his own popularity.

Piling on with the coincidence if this timely accusation is Musharraf’s announcement he was returning to Pakistan in January, made just two days before Sharif’s demand for early elections.

Of these two, Musharraf offered the only leader who, in the past, cooperated with the US in HUMINT, and tactitly approved Bush drone strikes. Considering the sheer volume of a US war, waged against Pakistan, by unmanned drones by Obama, I can’t see even Musharraf exercising the cooperation he extended to the Bush administration in the future.

Also worrisome for Sharif is the fact that he’s starting to lose ground in his own backyard, as the former splinter PML-Q, who left Sharif’s PML-N to back Musharraf, are starting to bond with Musharraf’s 2010 political party, the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML). Together, they are forging a relationship with another upcoming party, the PTI (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf) to oppose not only Sharif’s, party, but Zardari’s PPP as well. While Zardari and his party may be history as a majority, this alliance is likely to give Sharif’s support serious trouble in Punjah, and most especially in Lahore.

Imran Khan - moderate?

In the much misreported ta doo that surrounded Musharraf’s declaration emergency rule, Khan was under house arrest, and called for Musharraf’s prosecution with the death penalty. Khan escaped, went into a short period of hiding, then showed up in Punjab for a protest rally, and was captured by students and turned over to the police. He was incarcerated for a few days before he was released, along with 3000 others, who had been detained but not yet charged as part of the emergency rule declaration. A few days following Khan’s release, with the others, Musharraf resigned as army chief.

Despite the rocky past of support and adversity, an October report that Khan and Musharraf have been forging this political alliance for the upcoming, and likely early elections. Since Khan has recently surpassed Nawaz Sharif as being the most popular politician in Pakistan (for the moment…), and Khan considers Sharif another politician not to be trusted, any alliance between the two creates yet another obstacle for Sharif.

This potential alliance also has credibility after a splinter group, the PML-Quaid (who had split from the PML-Q) have lent their support to Khan’s PTI this past October as well.

But what is Khan’s, and the PTI’s, ideology, and their views towards the US? For Christian, Sikhs, and Hndu Pakistanis, the PTI’s religious tolerance is appealing. Social, government and educational reform is also high on the party’s priorities. The rising numbers are evident in the huge rallies of 100s of thousands in the streets of Karachi recently, protesting the current Pakistan government.

For the US? Not so much to celebrate. Khan and the PTI promise to end all cooperation with the US in fighting extremists, put a halt to all drone bombings, and refuse all US foreign aid. In short, the intent is to cut all US ties, which, as Khan believes, contributes to the instability between Pakistanis themselves. He’s also promised to end all Pakistan military activity in the terrorist invested tribal regions… not so good for the US either.

Sir David Frost’s interview this month with Khan, who he calls the likely next PM of Pakistan, casts Khan as Pakistan’s knight in shining armor who can end the Pakistan and Afghanistan wars in just 30 days.

If you listen carefully, Imran Khan will tell American and, in particular, his British audience in this Al Jazeera special, exactly how to end the war in Afghanistan. On the “Pakistan side of the border,” in what is called “the tribal areas” Khan says the war can be ended, not in 2 years, not 11 years but 30 days.

To end the war, you end the Jihad. To end “Jihad,” you have to understand what a Jihad is. Go back and listen again, he will put it in plain language. It is amusing, watching the “paid press” try to picture Khan as anti-American and extremist. What is extreme is honesty, something rare.

Good luck with that “ending of jihad”, and finding peace and harmony amongst all men, bit. But perhaps it’s the season to believe in fairy tales and unicorns.

On the other hand, his extreme distaste for aiding the US in quelling terrorist has also earned him the nickname of Taliban Khan.. somewhat ironic since you’d think that Nawaz Sharif would have that position sewn up for himself.

As far as Pakistan turning into a country ruled by Shariah law, both Khan and the PTI support a Pakistan that is “truly Islamic” In February 2009, he held talks with the SWAT militants, and urged “… the government to allow for sharia law not just in the tribal areas and the northwest, but throughout the country.”

While it’s undeniable that Khan supports Islam as rule of the land, his western education background makes him superficially attractive to many in the western world – perhaps envisioning that he can be considered a “moderate”, walking that fine line between turning Pakistan into a stone agent mentality for women and other religions, yet still keeping the peace between radical religious fanatics. Or else the case can be made we haven’t got a clue what he’d do. But there are sites that dedicate themselves to exposing him as a radical himself.

This grey area Shariah supporter becomes even more ironic when Khan’s own 1995 marriage to English socialite, Jemima Goldsmith Khan – a Jewess who converted to Islam – produced two sons (who also converted), but ended up in divorce nine years later because Ms. Khan just could not adapt to a life in Pakistan as a female Muslim with western upbringing. She still holds dual citizenship, and goes by the name of Khan because of her two Islamic sons, approximate ages 12 and 15.

In another bizarre twist, Ms. Khan – who dated actor Hugh Grant (now there’s a switch in companions…) is now a journalist, who was just recently appointed associate editor of the New Statesman… a publication in the Guardian’s publishing family.

In the past, Khan had been woo’ed by both Musharraf and Sharif for high level political positions. But it seems that his vacillating relationship with both has resulted in an even more lucrative position as being the possible PM head of power himself.

Those are the players. Hard to say if any are an inviting new leadership since the Obama foreign policy has destroyed any good will between the US and Pakistan for the foreseeable future. The only use for the US and the western press now will be for each candidate to manipulate the message.

The expedient use of the gullible, emotional and history challenged puppet western media to influence Pakistan’s leadership isn’t new. The most obvious example of this would be the past demonstration of the world-wide canonization of Benezir Bhutto – creator of Mullah Omar’s Taliban – while not-so-subtly attempting to topple Perez Musharraf. The western press – being historically ignorant – proves that manipulation of the western press is not only easy, but highly effective when it comes to influencing the world view of Pakistani leaders, and thereby effecting election outcomes.

At that same time, a previously banished, sentenced and discredited Islamic law supporter with terrorist ties – Nawaz Sharif – also gained a second foothold in the Pakistan government with the Bhutto/Zardari PPP victory and is currently being painted as the candidate most willing to negotiate with the US.

Why do I find that defective product tough to purchase….

Pakistan was never a fan of being viewed a puppet state of the US. But they did like our cash, and they did share a distaste for the jihad elements in their midst. The majority of the population has shunned Shariah as the nation’s law, but is that changing along with Sharif and Khan’s rise to power?

We’ll simply have to wait and see. The Obama foreign policy has placed us in the untenable situation that we not only wield no influence, but has fueled anti–US public opinion to new and unacceptable heights.

Yesterday, Curt linked to a Most Wanted article, wondering if Obama was preparing to surrender Afghanistan. I’d say the question and area is much larger than just Afghanistan. Not only did his policies lead to the Muslim Brotherhood as a liaison, and woo Nawaz Sharif as a Taliban negotiator in Pakistan, all options in Pakistan lead to a failed diplomatic relationship between the US and a nuclear armed nation for the foreseeable future.

And none of that bodes well for the US and any HUMINT for the global Islamic jihad elements, bent on destroying us. The US stands in the orchard, ready to reap the fruits of Obama’s foreign policy. And it appears that the fruit is already inedible.

The Obama debacle continues on…

Iran has threatened to halt traffic through the strait if the West moves to toughen sanctions including an oil embargo to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear program. The strait is the passageway for about a third of the world’s seaborne-traded oil last year, according to US Energy Department data.

“Iran has total control over the strategic waterway,” Iranian Naval Commander Admiral Habibollah Sayari told Iran’s Press TV yesterday as the Iranian navy conducted a 10-day exercise in international waters. “Closing the Strait of Hormuz is very easy for Iranian naval forces.”

“The free flow of goods and services through the Strait of Hormuz is vital to regional and global prosperity,” said Lieutenant Rebecca Rebarich, a US Navy spokeswoman in Bahrain, site of the 5th Fleet headquarters, in an e-mail. “Any disruption will not be tolerated.”

It’s obvious that the Iranians view Obama as a weak leader. Someone who likes to order predator strikes of single individual terrorists rather than making the tough, bold decisions. They understand the man will back down to Iran’s saber rattling. The rest of the western world would have something to say about the closing of the strait, that’s for sure, but with Obama’s jelly backbone it won’t be the US they will be worried about.

John Bolton:

His failure to secure an agreement with the Iraqi government is, as Bolton said, “catastrophic”. It has emboldened the Iranian government who is, and will be, a great threat to the western world.

While I agree with some that sooner or later the Iraqi’s were going to have to take control of their future it’s obvious that they were not completely ready at this point. The Iranian threat to the western world is too great to have not worked night and day to secure a diplomatic agreement on the extension of the SOFA. Honestly, we all know why this administration didn’t work too hard in securing an agreement that was palatable to both sides…his re-election.

He wanted to be able to say that he ended this war, and now the Iranians are even more emboldened, and even more a threat.

Stephen Hayes on Tuesday (skip to the 4:30 minute mark)

In reality only Joe Biden thinks that Joe Biden is something other than a village idiot. Biden has a long history of making ridiculous and stupid statements.

Click here to view the embedded video.

And here he demonstrates his math prowess:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And here is his health advice:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Now Joe Biden says that the Taliban is not our enemy:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Jay Carney then tried to defend Biden.

Click here to view the embedded video.

We’re fighting the Taliban, but they’re not our enemy??

Glad we got that straightened out.

Oddly, it wasn’t always this way:

Obama: Step up effort against Taliban, al-Qaida

Obama: Taliban and al Qaeda must be stopped

SAN DIEGO —

Senator Barack Obama is proposing that the United States deploy about 10,000 more troops to battle resurgent forces in Afghanistan, a plan intended to shift the American military focus from the Iraq war to the marked rise in violence from the Taliban.

Making peace treaties with the Taliban was once a bad thing- according to Obama.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I have said repeatedly that democrats depend heavily on their supporters having zero long term memory and once again it proves to be true. One thing that is hard to forget, though, is that Joe Biden is not just stupid, he is dangerously stupid.

U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Alpi ReyesCruz, who is from the Dominican Republic, waits for his ride on Combat Outpost Herrera Dec. 2. Reyes, an infantry soldier by trade, was finishing up a seven-month deployment as the Army Research, Development and Engineering Command's science and technology advisor for Regional Command East. The assignment took him all over the region, usually by himself, to document improvements soldiers wanted in their equipment. Once documented, he would relay the information back to the States where prototypes would be made and sent into theater for real-world trials before being mass produced and officially issued.

I went to the PX yesterday looking for some boot laces for one of our Wounded Warriors. His uniforms and boots had to be cut off. So, he has boots, but no laces.

Half the shelves were empty with little signs that begged for patience as “we are experiencing logistical supply shortages due to the blockade in Pakistan.”

Kabul is pissed because the ‘Merican drawdown will result in something like a $14BN loss to their economy. Their economy has seen roughly 11% annual growth over the last 5 years.

In other news, Pakistan has blocked ISAF trucks from crossing Torkham gate from Pakistan into Afghanistan. These trucks provide the majority of our equipment and life support. The Pakis are demanding something like $1750 per truck to be allowed transit, and there are currently over 1000 trucks stuck there (and as they are sitting there, they get pilfered, and attacked by Taliban). These are contracted vehicles, so the drivers are just as likely as not to say “screw it” and leave, with or without their payloads; and even if they stay, we pay them extra for their trouble.

Pakistan is literally holding needed supplies and trying to keep our forces hostage. These are, if you’ll recall, the same “partners” in the war on terror who didn’t know (*ahem*) bin Laden was living right outside their version of the war college. We kill bands of insurgents every day, and if they are anywhere near the border, Pakmil suddenly claims they were Pakistani forces. Even though we clear any kinetic strikes close to the border (within 4km on our side) through the Pakistan military liaison.

Can we please tell India that they are welcome to go jack Pakistan up? I get that Pakistan is a nuclear power, so we can’t exactly bully them, but last I checked, we a) have ICBMs, and they don’t; b) are the only country to ever use nukes in warfare; and c) already have an Army sitting on their border. Any commander in chief with balls would just order one or two of his brigades to seize OUR, taxpayer-provided equipment, and transport it into Afghanistan, with ROE that clearly states to remove any obstacles to that movement. Then, we would cut all funding and diplomatic ties with them, seize any Pakistani owned assets in the US, embargo all of their goods, and sink any ships they have, military or commercial. Just for giggles, we’d then drop bigass bombs all along their border in the “training camps” their military has (which look an awful like insurgent training camps, given that they are full of insurgents training, and not Pakistani military.)

Iraq will become Barack Obama’s Vietnam. Not in the boogieman sense that the left has been using the Vietnam War for the last 40 years where every American use of force is the “next Vietnam” but rather in its aftermath.

The Vietnam War ostensibly ended in ended in early 1973 with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords. The agreement was based upon an agreement by all sides to stop hostile activities and for American troops to depart. The Americans would continue to supply the South Vietnamese military. In addition, the SVN leadership was explicitly assured that were the North Vietnamese to resume hostilities the United States would begin bombing Hanoi and other targets in the North.

Unfortunately for the South Vietnamese, the promises of arms and support were mirages. In 1974 Congress cut military aid to Vietnam from $2.3 billion to $1 billion and then in 1975 to $300 million. Thanks to the Democrat’s Case-Church Amendment, when the North had resupplied and resumed hostilities, the promised US bombing never came. In April 1975 Saigon fell and the South surrendered.

Then came the nightmare. Upwards of a million South Vietnamese found themselves in prisons, “re-education camps” or other tropical outposts where they were treated to starvation, torture and murder. Hundreds of thousands more braved the oceans in order to escape, a quarter of them never reaching shore. The effects of this nightmare reached into Cambodia and Laos as well.

And now there is Iraq.

The war in Iraq was obviously far different from the one in Vietnam. Unfortunately however, the aftermath may be similarly unpleasant.

While Iran will not invade Iraq anytime soon, the country could still become a vassal of the ayatollahs. If Iraq escapes that fate it may well collapse into a civil war that eventually draws not only the involvement of the Iranians, but of the Saudis, the Turks and other neighbors as well. Oh, and, yes, perhaps eventually the Americans again.

However one feels about the war in Iraq in the first place, the manner of the exit ensures one thing, that the American blood and treasure spent toppling Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a viable democracy in the Middle East will likely be for naught.

Not that Saddam Hussein will be coming back anytime soon, he won’t… but the country he once ruled will likely become a basket case or a failed state.

The writing on the wall has been there for years. Candidate Obama had been a critic of the Surge and President Obama’s only priority in Iraq seemed to be leaving.

Iran was paying close attention. Although they had been heavily arming insurgents and Shia militants during the dark days of 2005-2007, by 2009 their efforts had largely been defeated with the establishment of a fledgling but credible Iraqi government infrastructure.

However, the national elections of 2010 opened the door to Iran once again. Barack Obama was inexplicably a proponent of a laissez faire policy in reference to the dysfunction in the formation of the Iraqi government following the 2010 elections. To anyone looking (and there were many) it was clear that the United States was disengaged and focused on wrapping up the operation.

Such chaos invites the efforts of a strong horse. Iran was willing to play. With an ambiguous constitution and a Chief Justice carrying Prime Minister Maliki’s water, the Iranians became the power brokers behind the new government, forcing Mr. Maliki into a coalition that included the Sadrists, erstwhile insurgents led by cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. This was only possible because of the vacuum left by the Obama administration. Had the Iraqis been confident that the United States would be standing with them until they could stand on their own, there would have been no vacuum for the Iranians to fill.

As things stand today, Iraq sits on a precipice of disaster. Within the last three months terrorist attacks have increased, sectarian infighting has escalated and two of the country’s eighteen provinces have sought semi-autonomous status, seeking to enjoy the autonomy the Kurds enjoy. Other provinces will surely follow. For a country with a weak central government and deep divisions amongst its population, such a centrifugal force is not exactly helpful. This will be particularly problematic as the national government seeks to collect and distribute oil revenues, bolster the power grid and perform other traditional tasks. Apart from the growing separatism at the local level, the federal government is a patchwork of alliances, most of which are held together by Iranian influence. That influence comes in various forms, from their covert (but hardly secret) support of terror groups Khataib Hizballah and Asaib Ahl al-Haqq, who are not only responsible for killing US troops but for targeted assassination across the country, to their overt economic, diplomatic and religious ties. As if to put a cherry bomb on the top of this powder keg, the day after the last American troops left the country, the Shiite-led government issued a warrant for Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, the country’s highest ranking Sunni official, on terrorism charges.

Of course it did not have to be this way. American Military planners had long sought to leave a force of between 20,000 to 30,000 troops to provide continued security, run counterinsurgency operations and to focus on training of the Iraqi military. Most analysts believed that number was the minimum number necessary to maintain many of the hard fought gains won over the last four years.

While 20,000 troops may sound rather small in terms of maintaining gains achieved in a country of 30 million people, the message they would have sent to the Iraqis, and equally importantly, to the Iranians, would have been crystal clear: The United States will not allow a democratically fragile Iraq to become an battleground of the Middle East or an Iranian puppet.

That however was never Barack Obama’s message. His campaign would later reveal his message: “Ending the War in Iraq: A Promise Kept”

For some perspective, one might observe that leaving sizable troop levels in a theater for a period of time after a conflict in order to maintain hard fought gains is nothing new. A quarter century after the end of WWII there were 260,000 American troops in Germany and today, sixty years after the Korean War there are 30,000 US troops in South Korea. Obviously the Korean peninsula and Western Europe are different than Mesopotamia, but the notion remains that leaving troops to midwife a long term positive outcome is far from foreign. At least to most people not named Barack Obama.

Instead, the message the Iraqis and their neighbors received from the United States was one of detachment driven by a President with little interest in anything other than ending “Bush’s War”. Whereas Bush talked with Prime Minister Maliki on a weekly basis, President Obama spoke with him rarely and not at all between February 13 and October 21 of this year, critical days in the period leading up to the end of the American presence in Iraq.

After months of doing nothing the administration finally proposed in August of this year to leave 3,000-5,000 troops, far below what most believed was necessary to secure the peace. Those numbers, far too small to fulfill its mission did prove helpful to the administration however: it provided a fig leaf behind which it could hide its retreat. This fig leaf came in the form of a lack of immunity for American troops on Iraqi soil. While Mr. Maliki and other members of the government may have been willing to go to the mattresses to secure such immunity for a substantial force that demonstrated a serious American commitment to Iraq, they were not willing to do so for a token force that would provide little support or security. Even that fig leaf was too small to provide true cover because the administration could have easily put any forces in Iraq on the diplomatic rolls, which would have provided such immunity.

At the end of the day, Iraq will be Barack Obama’s Vietnam in the sense that not only will most of the hard fought gains be lost, but there will be thousands who will pay the price for his choice, starting with the innocents who will be caught in the sectarian crossfire. They will not be the only ones however. So too will a price be paid by neighbors who fear an emboldened Iran as well as freedom advocates across the region who might have sought replicate Iraq’s success and build secular, democratic governments. And then there is the world’s confidence in the United States as a long term ally in the fight for regional stability and a bulwark against Iranian intervention.

Of course all of this comes on the heels of another futile round of sanctions seeking to keep the Iranians from developing or delivering a nuclear weapon. Barack Obama has certainly conveyed a message of strength and stability to the region. “Ending the War in Iraq: A Promise Kept” Indeed.

Howdy, everyone. Sorry I haven’t kept in touch as often as I wanted to. With the holidays here, we’ve been VERY busy getting troops home for leave.

Recently, my team lost eight vehicles. The contract was ending and my unit decided not to renew it to save money. I’m all in favor of saving taxpayer money, but not at the expense of the mission. Frankly, I lost 2 more vehicles than I need to efficiently do my job. However, this vehicle situation is one I want to touch on.

Where I am located, there are NTVs (basically civilian SUVs) everywhere. It almost seems like there are more NTVs than there are personnel to drive them. These NTVs range from older, early 00s model Toyotas to current model year Land Cruisers. Vehicles range in price from about $500 to $1500 for a lease per month, depending on model and year.

My team of used to have about 14 of these, one of which was a bus, one was a pickup truck, and one was a minivan. The rest were various types of Toyota and Mitsubishi SUVs. We recently ended the contract on eight of them. The average cost of these vehicles was $950 per month. By ending this contract, we saved over $90,000!

Just on my FOB alone, there are easily 5,000 NTVs. Now, I don’t know how many are assigned to military units and how many are assigned to contractors and civilians. So, let’s just use a nice, conservative number of 1,000 belonging to military units. Assuming the average cost of $1000 per month per vehicle, we are spending $1 million per month JUST ON NTVs!! But, that isn’t what is most outrageous.

KAF is a central turn-in point for units that are leaving or upgrading equipment. As you may know, we no longer use HMMWV (humvees) outside the wire. We have been using the MRAP series of vehicles for a few years now. These vehicles are great and increase the survivability of our troops from small arms fire and IEDs. They are true lifesavers!

There are HMMWVs here on KAF that are just sitting in a yard collecting dust, but no one can have them issued because they aren’t on our MTOE. In other words, HMMWVs are authorized vehicles for units to use right now unless they bring them from home station. Our only options for FOB transportation are NTVs or the bulky MRAPs (which I don’t have, by the way).

When we lost our vehicles, I looked into getting HMMWVs to use for transportation and movement of personnel and equipment around the FOB. I was told that I couldn’t sign for any because we aren’t authorized them.

So, instead of just issuing troops who never go outside the wire – like me – free vehicles that are just sitting around, we pay $1000 per month per vehicle that we don’t need to. And this is just on THIS FOB. There are numerous FOBs where this is also the case and we’re wasting money on civilian vehicles when a free HMMWV would work just fine.

We are a nearly bankrupt nation and every department is trying to find ways to trim their belts. I think a good start would be to get rid of these NTV contracts and find a way to authorize troops to use HMMWVs for use on the FOBs only. It sickens me that we are wasting so much money needlessly. It also sickens me that I need vehicles for my mission but I can’t sign for a vehicle just sitting around doing nothing.

On the positive side, we haven’t had any indirect fire since 30 November. The weather has gotten pretty cold, dipping down into the low 30s overnight. The days are still quite pleasant hovering around 70. We come to the office all bundled up and by mid afternoon we’re already sweating!

Morale is high and our troops are doing great things here. With the holidays here, care packages have been flowing in. It’s humbling to be the recipient of such generosity. Someone even donated a Blu-Ray player to us to watch movies on when they heard that our PS2 was broken. Now, we’re just trying to get movies to play on it. Thankfully, it also plays regular DVDs.

I hope you all have a wonderful Christmas. We will celebrate here with a special meal of canned eggnog, meats, cheeses and crackers. It’s a deployment tradition I’ve always followed. We’ll sit around drinking hot chocolate and apple cider and watching A Charlie Brown Christmas! Our tree even resembles that one! heh. Just kidding. We had a tree sent to us with lights and decorations.

What a shock. This President will send troops into Uganda, drop bombs into Libya, back fanatical Muslims in Egypt, but when it comes to Iran….and our top secret technology, he’s a bit timid:

With early knowledge that the aircraft had likely remained intact, the senior U.S. official also told Fox News that President Obama was presented with three separate options for retrieving or destroying the drone. The president ultimately decided not to proceed with any of the plans because it could have been seen as an act of war.

…One official told Fox News on Thursday that the incident is a huge loss and makes the top-secret helicopter tail lost during the Usama bin Laden raid in Pakistan “look like a pittance.” The official said there are real fears the Iranians will share this technology with the Russians and the Chinese, in addition to using it themselves.

What a pansy.

And then he brags about bin-Laden but allows the Muslim Brotherhood to come ever so closer to their dreamed about sixth Caliphate.

The destruction he has done to this country, and it’s future security is breathtaking to behold.

The following video offers a bit more context than the video clip that’s gone viral:

Click here to view the embedded video.

At least in this clip you can see a bit of what was going on prior to the police using oc sprays to try and disperse the students.

So what other alternative recourse should the UC police have taken? The students were certainly given fair warning.

HuffPo:

Charles J. Kelly, a former Baltimore Police Department lieutenant who wrote the department’s use of force guidelines, said pepper spray is a “compliance tool” that can be used on subjects who do not resist, and is preferable to simply lifting protesters.

“When you start picking up human bodies, you risk hurting them,” Kelly said. “Bodies don’t have handles on them.”

After reviewing the video, Kelly said he observed at least two cases of “active resistance” from protesters. In one instance, a woman pulls her arm back from an officer. In the second instance, a protester curls into a ball. Each of those actions could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques.

“What I’m looking at is fairly standard police procedure,” Kelly said.

What I find to be ridiculous is any comparison of “brave” students and supporters of the Occupy movements to brave protesters of the so-called “Arab Spring” uprisings; and also to how those in authority deal with the protests. I bet Syrians and Iranians would have much preferred OC sprays to what they’ve been experiencing at the hands of their government’s police and military.

Did the students have a more preferable means of being forcefully removed than what they experienced?