Like Previous Marxist Leaders, Obama Appreciates Scorched Earth Policy

We are now engaged in another great illegal war, this one is in Yemen; relax, we are only killing Al Qaeda operatives and civilians, since Obama was elected with a 6% landslide margin and has the unflinching support of American Socialists, he is not bound by the usual rules that govern presidents. The war is classified so only the readers of the New York Times and Flopping Aces know about it; however, the relatives of civilians killed in the kinetic actions have probably put the pieces together. We are striking at militant leaders with armed drones and fighter jets, so in Obama’s unique definition of war and Nobel Peace Prize qualification, it narrowly misses being designated as a war, there is also a growing power vacuum in a nation we consider to be an ally.

Yemeni troops are battling militant troops of Al Qaeda for control of the country, Obama sees the use of American firepower as an option for keeping the same militants he has helped to gain power in other oil rich Middle Eastern Countries from gaining power. Obama realizes he alone must employ a discriminating and at times prejudicial sense of judgement to designate which tyrants should stay in power and which ones should yield to Al Qaeda.

Democrats have given their tacit approval of Obama’s gunboat or airstrike diplomacy because he has the much heralded but difficult to define superior intelligence to conduct rogue wars and assassinations of enemies and American citizens with style and aplomb so characteristic of Liberal hypocrisy. Its true they would have incited their witless legions to riot if these same acts of barbarism had been committed by a Republican, but they have a committed Marxist in the White House and questioning the Party Line or the Revolution is counter revolutionary.

These latest strikes come after strikes were halted a year ago as a result of poor intelligence that resulted in significant civilian deaths and bungled missions that were complicating the goals of Obama’s objectives, if we are to assume he actually has predefined objectives, like his intelligence he plays his cards close to his chest.

Officials in Washington acknowledged that American and Saudi spies have been receiving more intel from electronic eavesdropping and informants, but they admitted that the information could be programmed and manipulated to provide strikes against rival factions, those militants can prove to be real rascals.

An anonymous Pentagon official confirmed that using airstrikes and drones is complicated because Al Qaeda operatives mingle with other rebels and antigovernment militants, thus making it difficult for Obama to send his death from the sky without appearing as if he taking sides.

The American campaign in Yemen is led by the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command, and is closely coordinated with the Central Intelligence Agency. Teams of American military and intelligence operatives have a command post in Sana, the Yemeni capital, to track intelligence about militants in Yemen and plot future strikes.

Concerned that support for the campaign could wane if the government of Yemen’s authoritarian president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, were to fall, the United States ambassador in Yemen has met recently with leaders of the opposition, partly to make the case for continuing American operations. Officials in Washington said that opposition leaders have told the ambassador, Gerald M. Feierstein, that operations against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula should continue regardless of who wins the power struggle in Sana.

The extent of America’s war in Yemen has been among the Obama administration’s most closely guarded secrets, as officials worried that news of unilateral American operations could undermine Mr. Saleh’s tenuous grip on power. Mr. Saleh authorized American missions in Yemen in 2009, but placed limits on their scope and has said publicly that all military operations had been conducted by his own troops.

American air strikes that kill civilians continue to complicate the situation; particularly, since there is no declared war or reason for the air strikes, especially for the civilians being killed and their relatives. There is always the chance of retaliation by those who feel as if their lives have been adversely affected by the death of loved ones by a trigger happy Obama.

“We’ve seen the regime move its assets away from counterterrorism and toward its own survival,” said Christopher Boucek, a Yemen expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “But as things get more and more chaotic in Yemen, the space for the Americans to operate in gets bigger,” he said.

But Mr. Boucek and others warned of a backlash from the American airstrikes, which over the past two years have killed civilians and Yemeni government officials. The benefits of killing one or two Qaeda-linked militants, he said, could be entirely eroded if airstrikes kill civilians and lead dozens of others to jihad.

Edmund J. Hull, ambassador to Yemen from 2001 to 2004 and the author of “High-Value Target: Countering Al Qaeda in Yemen,” called airstrikes a “necessary tool” but said that the United States had to “avoid collateral casualties or we will turn the tribes against us.”

Obama’s policy of consulting advisors and bureaucrats that are less intelligent than him seems to be one of the more consistent features of his administration.

The Yemeni experts seem to be at least as knowledgeable as the most intelligent President, who has yet to provide any indications of his superior intelligence.

Close to five hundred captured Taliban are now free once more to fight another day:

In one of the most elaborate prison breaks in recent Afghan history, the Taliban managed to free hundreds of inmates from Kandahar’s central prison in the early hours of Monday morning through a 1,180-foot tunnel.

The mass escape – reportedly not discovered until hours after it was over – has further shaken Afghans’ faith in their government, and intensified concerns that the freed prisoners will bolster the insurgency in Kandahar.

The escape is a particular blow to NATO and Afghan forces who have ratcheted up their campaign against the Taliban during the past year and hoped to expand their gains this summer. While NATO forces captured many of the Taliban fighters who were being held in the prison, the escape cast doubts on the ability of Afghan forces preparing to take more responsibility for providing security.

“I would call this a shameful incident for the Afghan government,” says Ahmad Shah Khan Achakzai, a former member of parliament in Kandahar. “It is impossible for the Taliban to get 500 men out of prison without anyone’s help. I believe there are some people from the prison or the government who gave the Taliban support.… It’s now clear to everyone how corrupt the government is.”

The reactions by the Afghan population have been quite angry:

…Military analyst Abdul Hadi Khaliq warns that the escapees are “radicalized, ready-to-fight, and extremist” fighters. “This shows that the Kandahar government is paralyzed or has made a deal with the enemy. Either way, major changes need to be made in Kandahar. The Kandahar authorities must be punished, not rewarded as in the past,” Khaliq argues, referring to a previous Taliban prison break in Kandahar three years ago.

Cheragh Daily also alleges that local authorities were complicit in the jail break. “Even if digging the tunnel was not a scenario to free the terrorists from prison as concessions to [Taliban] leaders, we cannot rule out involvement of powerbrokers and influential hands in the incident.” Ridiculing Hamid Karzai’s conciliatory approach to the Taliban, the paper asks the president to explain whether the escapees were “foreign elements” or “dissatisfied brothers.” The paper warns that all escapees will “return to their trenches and continue to kill defenseless Afghan people and troops.” Afghan daily Hasht-e Sobh writes that the escape of Taliban fighters could “boost the morale of the Taliban and weaken the confidence of security forces.”

…Mohammad Sarwar Usmani, a lawmaker from Farah Province, also implicates local authorities and warns that the enemies’ growing infiltration into the security forces is dangerous. Usmani calls on the Karzai government to stop releasing Taliban prisoners through the High Peace Council. The council has recently asked the United States to release Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo jail, including top Taliban leader Khairullah Khairkhah. “If Khairkhah wants to make peace, we will welcome him. We will make contacts and discuss his release,” Karzai told journalist in Kabul recently. Usmani, however, argues that Taliban fighters freed from jail rejoin the terrorists and their release has had no effect on the prospect for peace.

And we’re left to ponder a few things. First, how in the hell can the coalition even think about relying on THIS government to disengage from the conflict. Second, wouldn’t it been better if these 400+ terrorists had no longer existed in the first place?

In the end it matters little from the vantage point of Taliban fighters in the countryside. As I have observed before, given the catch-and-release program, the radicalization of half-way insurgents in these prisons, and the reflexive reversion to capture rather than kill, ISAF operations that capture insurgents are becoming a literal joke among the Taliban (see prior articles). I pay absolutely no attention whatsoever to ISAF press releases that begin with “Taliban fighters detained …”

If this is offensive to sensibilities, if this causes an outcry over advocacy of harsh rules of engagement, if this causes moral preening over the rules of war, then so be it. Withdraw from Afghanistan and end the campaign now. In either case, prisons do not work in counterinsurgency. Kill them or let them go, but putting them into a fake justice system is a worthless enterprise.

The restrictions put on our soldiers fighting in either war is ridiculous and will be the undoing of any success we’ve had in the wars.

Oh, btw, had to throw this out there since it’s related to the War on Terror….more evidence of the ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Bill Roggio updates the Afghanistan situation with some somber, but expected, news. Members of al-Qaeda are training the Taliban:

“We also have seen some indications that there have been foreign trainers that have come to train the local Taliban who are fighting here in Andar,” Lieutenant Colonel David Fivecoat, commander of 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, recently told TOLOnews. The report stated that “foreign trainers” are “Arabs, Chechens, and Pakistanis.” US military officials often describe members of al Qaeda and allied terror groups as foreign fighters.

Al Qaeda operates in conjunction with the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and the Hizb-i-Islami Gulbuddin network throughout Afghanistan. Al Qaeda operatives often serve as embedded military trainers for Taliban field units and impart tactics and bomb-making skills to these forces. In addition, Al Qaeda frequently supports the Taliban by funding operations and providing weapons and other aid. [See LWJ report, Al Qaeda's paramilitary 'Shadow Army' for more information on al Qaeda's role in Afghanistan.]

~~~

The Andar district in Ghazni is a known Taliban and al Qaeda hub in the southeast. Since October 2008, the US military has conducted seven raids against al Qaeda cells in Andar, according to press reports compiled by The Long War Journal. Senior Taliban and al Qaeda foreign fighter facilitators are known to operate in the district.

~~~

Al Qaeda’s extensive reach in Afghanistan is documented in the body of press releases issued in recent years by the International Security Assistance Force. Looking at press releases dating back to March 2007, The Long War Journal has been able to detect the presence of al Qaeda and affiliated groups such as the Islamic Jihad Union in 70 different districts in 21 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces.

Furthermore there is talk from the US soldiers on the ground that Pakistan’s ISI is attempting to sabotage the security situation in the district of Ghazni.

“They want to destroy the plans for the government to become stronger. They don’t want these people to have government.”

General Petreaus wrote yesterday that victory can be achieved, but it will entail a much more “expansive” effort:

The general’s assessment, in the form of a letter to troops posted on the NATO Web site, outlined a fight in which troops and the military machine here had gained the edge or was on the cusp of doing so on every front. He described victory as attainable only through a vast, coordinated effort to bring Afghanistan security, good governance and economic development.

Ensuring that Al Qaeda never again uses Afghanistan as a haven requires “that we help Afghanistan develop the ability to secure and govern itself,” the letter states. “This in turn requires the conduct of a comprehensive civil-military campaign.”

Given all that, what did we get from Obama last night during the SOTU? A few sentences and then on to more choo-choo “Sputnik” ridiculousness.

It’s clear that the Taliban, and al-Qaeda, need only play a waiting game to win. They understand that with this President they are in no danger of being militarily defeated. All they have to do is hold on for a few months more and the troops will be on their way out and just like that….they will be back in the game. Deja-vu 1996.

And we all know what happened five years later.

Having a President that is more concerned about keeping power in order to keep his domestic agenda on track, rather then worrying about losing Afghanistan to the Taliban, and Iraq to Iran, we have to ask ourselves….how long until the next massive attack on our soil?

Former British PM Tony Blair testified in front of another Iraq inquiry today and for the second time this year he testified about the very real danger of Iran and al-Qaeda working together. Of course the storyline by the British papers, the biased MSM, and the lefty blogosphere, is regarding the regret offered by Blair over the loss of life:

At the end of his evidence this afternoon he said it had never been his meaning. “Of course I regret deeply and profoundly the loss of life,”

I’m sure everyone else would cheer the loss of life huh? I mean come on, of course he regrets the loss of life. This is news? Some kind of acknowledgment that he screwed up? Please.

In his written testimony (PDF) he gave much needed attention to the collusion between Iran and al-Qaeda:

The Role of AQ and Iran

This, in my view, merits a special section. This was the game-changer, the dimension not foreseen, that almost tipped Iraq into the abyss. There is no analysis of what happened after May 2003 that is anywhere near the mark, without consideration of how and why Al Qaida and Iran played the roles they did. The truth is: without their interventions, the situation would have been manageable. It was AQ that staged the bombing “spectaculars” that killed thousands of innocent people, drove the international community and development organisations and UN out of Iraq, committed the outrage on the Golden Mosque in Samarra in February 2006 to trigger sectarian violence and created a climate of fear in the country and a sense of a slide into chaos abroad. It was Iran that financed and armed militia groups who created the worsening security situation in the south, contributed to the problems in Baghdad, and through EFPs and IEDs killed coalition and in particular UK soldiers.

The pre-war intelligence made mention of AQ. Various JIC assessments alluded to them and to the possibility of AQ in the north attacking coalition forces. But the bulk of the assessments were focussed on the risks of greater AQ attacks on coalition interests elsewhere in the world, in the Gulf, in Britain etc. There was no sense that AQ would mount a full-scale operation in Iraq after the removal of Saddam. In retrospect as I said in my evidence, the intelligence that al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian AQ leader, had been in Baghdad in May 2002 should perhaps have been given more weight. But actually most of the British authorities were at pains to separate Saddam from AQ in 2002 not to link them.

As far as Iran’s involvement, that was specifically assessed as unlikely given the hostility to Saddam. If anything, it was thought that whilst Iran would have a keen interest, naturally, in what happened in Iraq it would be more interested in promoting stability than instability.

And just as many people have taken pains to point out that Saddam and al-Qaeda would not work together because one is secular and one is not (a theory proven wrong) many people thought Iran and al-Qaeda would not work together because one is Shia, the other Sunni. Tony Blair brought this up when he testified last year:

What nobody foresaw was that Iran would actually end up supporting AQ. The conventional wisdom was these two are completely different types of people because Iran is Shia, the Al-Qaeda people are Sunni and therefore, you know, the two would never mix. What happened in the end was that they did because they both had a common interest in destabilising the country, and for Iran I think the reason they were interested in destabilising Iraq was because they worried about having a functioning majority Shia country with a democracy on their doorstep, and for Al-Qaeda they knew perfectly well their whole mission was to try and say the West was oppressing Islam. It is hard to do that if you replace tyrannical governments with functioning democracies.

This sparked some questions from the inquiry members again. This exchange is memorable (PDF) and quite informative:

SIR RODERIC LYNE: By getting rid of Saddam’s nuclear weapons by decapitating the regime send a signal to Iran not to go on developing nuclear weapons?

HE RT. HON. TONY BLAIR: Obviously it sent a signal to everyone which is why Libya –

SIR RODERIC LYNE: Well, how did the Iranians react?

THE RT. HON. TONY BLAIR: Initially they felt that pressure, now they don’t feel the same pressure.

SIR RODERIC LYNE: Don’t they feel they need them more in case the Americans have the same intentions towards them?

THE RT. HON. TONY BLAIR: No, that is not the reason why Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

SIR RODERIC LYNE: It was doing it even under the Shah.

THE RT. HON. TONY BLAIR: It is a rather different regime today. People can take two views about Iran today, but I will give you my view very, very strongly indeed, because this is a looming and coming challenge. I am out in that region the whole time. I see the impact and influence of Iran everywhere. It is negative, destabilising. It is supportive of terrorist groups. It is doing everything it can to impede progress in the Middle East peace process and to facilitate a situation in which that region cannot embark on the process of modernisation it urgently needs.

This is not because we have done something. You know, at some point — and I say this to you with all the passion I possibly can — the West has to get out of this what I think is a wretched policy or posture of apology for believing that we are causing what the Iranians are doing or what these extremists are doing. We are not. The fact is they are doing it because they disagree fundamentally with our way of life and they will carry on doing it unless they are met with the requisite determination and if necessary force.

The fact that — look, President Obama, not President Bush — this is an important point — President Obama goes in March 2009 to Cairo in the heart of Islam. He makes a speech where he says effectively “Put aside the Bush era. I am now offering the hand of friendship. You, Iran can come into partnership. You are an ancient proud civilisation. We will welcome you in”.

What’s the response he gets? They carry on with the terrorism. They carry on with the destabilisation. They carry on with the nuclear weapons programme. At some point we have to get our heads out of the sand and understand they are going to carry on with this. Iraq is one part of a far bigger picture and right across that region people are facing that struggle.

Many people still do not understand this point and will keep their head in the sand until the worst happens.

September 6, 2010 Afghans wave banners saying “Quran is our law, Islam is our religion” during a demonstration against the U.S. in Kabul. Hundreds railed against the U.S. and called for President Barack Obama’s death at the rally denouncing an American church’s plans to burn the Islamic holy book on Sept. 11.
Musadeq Sadeq-AP

As I’m sure everyone is made aware of already, General Petraeus has publicly spoken out against the wisdom (or lack thereof) of the planned burning of Korans on September 11th:

“It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort,” Gen. Petraeus said in an interview. “It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community.”

Hundreds of Afghans attended a demonstration in Kabul on Monday to protest the plans of Florida pastor Terry Jones, who has said he will burn copies of Islam’s holy book to mark the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Afghan protesters chanted “death to America,” and speakers called on the U.S. to withdraw its troops. Some protesters threw rocks at a passing military convoy.

Military officials fear the protests will likely spread to other Afghan cities, especially if the event is broadcast or ends up on Internet video.

Gen. Caldwell said many Afghans do not understand either the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment or the fact that President Barack Obama can’t simply issue a decree to stop Mr. Jones from his demonstration. Military officials said they were not trying to deny Mr. Jones his right to free speech, but feared he was not thinking about the consequences of his actions.

“There is no question about First Amendment rights; that is not the issue,” Gen. Caldwell said. “The question is: What is the implication over here? It is going to jeopardize the men and women serving in Afghanistan.”

As opponents of the “Ground Zero Mosque” like to say, “This isn’t about what’s legal. We know it’s legal. This is about what’s right.”

What good will be accomplished by the burning of the Koran? In its original Arabic, it is regarded with deep reverence by those who practice the faith seriously (both by jihadis and by peaceful Muslims), as the very Word of God. By trying to hurt “radicals” who else are they hurting in the process? Of course, Terry Jones, who authored a book titled “Islam is of The Devil,” is one of those who regards Islam itself as the enemy. This plays right into the hands of bin Laden and Zawahiri who desperately want the entire Muslim world to buy into their propaganda that the West, and the U.S. in particular, are persecuting Muslims and are at war with their faith. Truth is not on their side…unless al Qaeda has willing dupes like Terry Jones pawning for them.

There is no question that a good percentage of the Islamic world has a tolerance and anger management problem:

Allegations of mishandling the Quran have interrupted Afghan security training at least twice this year, Gen. Caldwell said.

In one instance, a Quran fell to the ground when an American officer opened a locker during an inspection of Afghan trainees’ barracks. The rumor quickly spread that the officer had thrown it to the ground, angering the trainees at the camp. “He quickly apologized, but rumors took off like wildfire,” Gen. Caldwell said. “It was so hard to get the misperception turned around we stopped all training for the rest of the day.”

Reports about the Quran have set off violent protests before. A report in Newsweek, later retracted, that a U.S. interrogator at the Guantanamo Bay prison had flushed a Quran down a toilet set off riots in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

And certainly there is a fair amount of double standard at work, where artists, comedians, writers, and anti-Christian bigots feel free to insult and defile Christianity while Islam appears to be “off limits”. At least not without “Islamic rage boy” terrorizing the offenders with fatwas and rioting.

There is no fear of Christian militant Crusadists walking up to Andres Serrano and stabbing him to death over Piss Christ.

However, a few points:

1) We are not in the middle of a war with Christian religious radical extremist militants where winning hearts and minds of the Christian majority is a major part of waging a global counterinsurgency effort.

2) Just because one can ridicule Christians and Jews and get away with it does not make it right to do so. One should, in general, be respectful of others. Be the example. The line of reasoning that argues “We’ll let a mosque be built here as soon as they allow churches and synagogues to be built at Mecca and Medina” are just juvenile and self-serving tit for tats. Why would we choose to be “more like them”? So arguing that we should burn Korans because others are able to desecrate things held sacred by Jews and Christians and get away with it is just a weak, childish, vindictive, gratuitous form of being what you profess to hate. Who are we really hurting here?

We shouldn’t have to tip-toe on eggshells around a particular religion and give special preferential treatment to it, not extended to the other faiths. However, the reality also remains that one of the three major faiths does have an anger management problem amongst a sizable minority of its practitioners and we are in the middle of a war. A war that requires the winning of hearts and minds and the marginalization of the more radical elements of Islam from the more moderate elements of Islam.

We have Muslim allies in our war. They and our enemy share the same Holy Book. But their reading of it differs. How does burning their Holy Book hurt our enemy and not our allies?

Interestingly enough, one of my friends who is French Muslim-American, posted a CNN video interview of Terry Jones a couple of weeks ago on her FB wall. Every single one of her Muslim friends merely laughed or was dismissive, expressing a “turn the other cheek” sentiment in their comments. No stereotypical Islamic rage here. One might call their reaction a very typical “Christian” response. They’d probably disagree and say they are being “Islamic” in their tolerance (Believe it or not, cynicism and derision aside, Sumbul Ali-Karamali talks about tolerance in Islam in her book, “The Muslim Next Door”).

I do not believe that desecration of the Koran hurts bin Laden and Zawahiri in the slightest. I do believe that they welcome- they beg for “International Burn a Koran Day” to occur….because it plays right into their propaganda playbook.

Just because we can…..should we?

A handwritten Koran is displayed during an exhibition in Malacca, Malaysia January 12, 2008. You Witness News/Aizuddin Saad

A teenage Iraqi interpreter, code name “Roy,” served with a reconnaisance platoon in Iraq in 2007. (Blake Hall)

Iraq war critic, Thomas Ricks, links to a WaPo story by retired Army captain Blake Hall that tells a different perspective on the narrative of the war:

“One day the Qaeda came to my school. They say, ‘You are not students anymore! Put away your books! Now we show you the path of jihad!’ My two best friends say to them, ‘We are students trying to learn. We don’t want to do the jihad.’ ”

“And then?”

Roy gave me a wan smile. “Then, they gather the school in one place, they kneel them down, and they cut their heads with the knife.”

“They beheaded your two best friends, Roy?”

“Yes, sir. I walk to the base the next day and give them my name to work for you. I hate the Qaeda.”

Read the whole piece. You won’t understand the title of this post until you do. (And here is the NYTimes article referenced toward the end of Hall’s op-ed).

One of my favorite excerpts:

* * *

Roy and I were sitting on a smooth concrete floor with our backs against a concrete wall. We were with one of my sniper teams in an apartment overlooking a four-way intersection. I was thinking about the course of the war, from the early days of the invasion in 2003, when the Iraqis seemed overjoyed and the giant statue of Saddam Hussein toppled, to the most violent days of the insurgency. I wasn’t sure what to make of the shift.

“Roy, did most of the Iraqis always hate us?” I asked.

“No, sir. When the Americans first came, everyone was very happy.”

“And now?” I asked.

Roy shrugged.

“How do we fix Iraq, Roy?”

“Nuke it, sir.”

The snipers and I laughed.

“But Roy, your mom and your family is in Baghdad. You can’t seriously think nuking Iraq is the answer.”

“Sir, the only way to fix Iraq is to nuke it.”

“You’ve been hanging out with the guys too long, Roy.”

“Wehl alraght.” [picked up the Kentucky accent from Hall's driver, as relayed earlier in the article- ws]

The snipers collapsed into fits of laughter.

* * *

If there is one thing the Iraq War did, it was to unite Iraqis and U.S./Coalition forces against the common threat of al Qaeda and expose their brand of Islam to the eyes of the Muslim world.

Iraqi interpreters have been invaluable allies in the war effort, aiding our soldiers at great personal risk to not only themselves, but also to their families. Regarded as traitors by some Iraqis and not fully trusted by our side, most deserve our thanks; not assassinations.

Back in June of this year, one Iraqi interpreter was gunned down by his son and nephew who were part of an AQI-linked group.

For those who missed the 2006-7 60 Minutes segment about the plight of Iraqi “terps” when it aired: Left Behind

Over the weekend our troops in Afghanistan beat back two complex attacks on two of our forward bases by members of The Haqqani Network.  A network of fighters that have links with both al-Qaeda and the Taliban as well as the Pakistan ISI agency.  They have a foothold in North Waziristan and make that area their headquarters.

The Haqqani Network has been implicated in some of the biggest terror attacks in the Afghan capital city of Kabul, including the January 2008 suicide assault on the Serena hotel, the February 2009 assault on Afghan ministries, and the July 2008 and October 2009 suicide attacks against the Indian embassy.

~~~

The Haqqani Network is led by Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son, Sirajuddin. Jalaluddin is thought to be ill and is considered the patriarch of the network. Siraj runs the daily operations and is the group’s military commander.

Siraj is one of the most wanted Taliban and al Qaeda leaders in the Afghan-Pakistan region. The US military has described Siraj as the primary threat to security in eastern Afghanistan. He is the mastermind of the most deadly attacks inside Afghanistan, including suicide assaults in Kabul, and he is the senior military commander in eastern Afghanistan. He is the leader of the Taliban’s Miramshah Regional Military Shura, one of the Afghan Taliban’s four regional commands.

Siraj is considered dangerous not only for his ties with the Afghan Taliban, but also because of his connections with al Qaeda’s central leadership, which extend all the way to Osama bin Laden. Siraj is a member of al Qaeda’s Shura Majlis, or top council, US intelligence sources told The Long War Journal. In a tape released in April 2010, Siraj admitted that cooperation between the Taliban and al Qaeda “is at the highest limits.” On March 25, 2009, the US Department of State put out a $5 million bounty for information leading to the capture of Siraj.

~~~

Despite Siraj’s ties with al Qaeda, and the Haqqani Network’s use of suicide attacks, some top US military commanders have stated that Jalaluddin Haqqani, his father, and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, another supporter of al Qaeda, are “absolutely salvageable” and ripe for negotiations.

“The HIG already have members in Karzai’s government, and it could evolve into a political party, even though Hekmatyar may be providing al Qaeda leaders refuge in Kunar,” Major General Michael Flynn, the top military intelligence official in Afghanistan, told The Atlantic in April 2010. “Hekmatyar has reconcilable ambitions. As for the Haqqani network, I can tell you they are tired of fighting, but are not about to give up. They have lucrative business interests to protect: the road traffic from the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to Central Asia.”

As for the attack itself:

The al Qaeda-linked Haqqani Network lost more than 30 fighters and a commander during the Aug. 28 attack on two US forward operating bases in eastern Afghanistan.

The International Security Assistance Force said that US and Afghan troops “killed more than 30 Haqqani Network insurgents” during the early-morning assault on Forward Operating Bases Salerno and Chapman. Thirteen of of those killed were wearing suicide vests, ISAF stated. A US intelligence official told The Long War Journal that 35 Haqqani Network fighters were killed during the clashes. ISAF had initially estimated that 21 Haqqani Network fighters and a senior facilitator named Mudasir were killed during and immediately after the assault.

After the fighting, Afghan and Coalition forces “capitalized on intelligence tips” and captured a Haqqani Network commander who was “involved in planning the attacks.” Two of the commander’s associates were also detained during the raid, which took place near Bakhtanah in Khost’s Sabari district.

Last night, another Haqqani Network commander involved in the attack was detained along with several of his fighters during a raid near Khodizali in Khost’s Terayzai district.

A US intelligence official described the Haqqani Network attack in Khost over the weekend and other recent assaults at Kandahar Airfield, Bagram Airbase, and Jalalabad Airfield as futile efforts that have served as a meat grinder for Taliban foot soldiers.

“These sorts of FOB [forward operating base] attacks have become little more than exercises in target practice here,” the official said. “They show up, we watch them; we kill them.”

Bill Roggio writes that this attack is believed to be in response to many recent operations against the network, almost nightly. Including one on the 26th where a high level leader was captured.

The commander, who was not named, has links to the highest levels of the Haqqani Network. A US intelligence official who tracks the Haqqani Network said the commander has been in direct contact with both Jan Baz Zadran and Badruddin Haqqani. Zadran, a top aide to Siraj Haqqani, the leader of the Haqqani Network, is the group’s logistical and financial coordinator, and also acquires weapons and ammunition for the network. Badruddin is one of Siraj’s brothers and serves as a senior military commander.

In another raid, on Aug. 28, Afghan and Coalition forces killed a commander known as Naman and seven of his fighters during a raid near Kowti Sheyl in Paktia’s Zurmat district. The commander was responsible for “coordinating and conducting indirect fire and direct fire attacks against Afghan and coalition forces” and also “also coordinated the movement of improvised explosive devices, ammunition, supplies and fighters.”

It sounds like our military in the Stan is being proactive, which is great to hear. But since Obama gave a withdrawal deadline of July 2011 how can this last? All they have to do is wait it out.

President Barack Obama’s July 2011 date to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan has given a morale boost to Taliban insurgents, who believe they can wait out NATO forces, the top U.S. Marine said Tuesday.

But General James Conway, who is retiring this fall as commandant of the Marine Corps, said he believed Marines would not be in a position to withdraw from the fight in southern Afghanistan for years.

Conway’s unusually blunt assessment is likely to fan criticism by opposition Republicans of Obama’s war strategy as public opinion of the nine-year-old war sours further.

“In some ways, we think right now it is probably giving our enemy sustenance,” Conway said of the July 2011 deadline.

Of course it is. So while on the one hand our troops are giving the enemy much to worry about but on the other we have our President giving the enemy assurances that it will all be over soon. Just hunker down and wait it out.

What a pathetic leader this country elected.

Saving Soldiers From Mental Effects of War

The only words I have are:
Godspeed my friend
and
ShannonROCKS! (yes, 1word!)

-Scott

Posted at Black Five

Thomas Ricks just prior to McChrystal’s resignation:

it may be time for a whole new team in Afghanistan. My nomination is for Petraeus to step down an echelon and take the Afghanistan command. You could leave him nominally the Centcom chief but let his deputy, Marine Lt. Gen. John Allen, oversee Iraq, the war planning for Iran, and dealing with Pakistan and the Horn of Africa. But more likely is that Petraeus will ask for another Marine general, James Mattis, who is just finishing up at Jiffycom, and who had planned to retire later this year and head home to Walla Walla, Washington. Petraeus and Mattis long have admired each other. The irony is that Mattis has a reputation — unfairly, I think — for speaking a little too bluntly in public about things like killing people. I think Mattis is a terrific, thoughtful leader.

My my… more evidence bubbles to the surface that the US-Mexican border war is about more than the civil rights of illegal immigrants… or the anticipated built in voter bloc for desperate Dems. Today brings good news that the Mexican police are actively working to thwart Hezbollah’s attempt to gain a foothold there. A surveillance operation focused on Hezbollah leader, Jameel Nasr, resulted in his arrest at his Tijuana home. Nasr employed Mexican nationals with family ties to Lebanon for his Hezbollah/Mexico network.

According to the report, Mexican police mounted a surveillance operation on the group’s leader, Jameel Nasr, who traveled frequently to Lebanon to receive information and instructions from Hezbollah commanders there.

Police say Nasr also made frequent trips to other countries in Latin America, including a two-month stay in Venezuela in the summer of 2008.

Tijuana… a stone’s throw from southern Cal. ummm, yeah.

Apparently Mexican officials are more astute to the US-Mexico border wars being intrinsically tied to jihad than the POTUS holding down the swivel chair in the Oval Office. As I posted back on June 26th, Obama’s attempts to grant a blanket amnesty to immigrants holding expired visas was most likely going to benefit the terrorists entering this country thru Mexico using falsified documentation…. something your average, poverty stricken, field picking immigrant can’t afford to obtain.

Makes you wonder if California officials shouldn’t be looking at that AZ immigration law a bit more carefully, no?