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

20140107_FallujahIraqmap620x350by JOHN BERNARD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more at Family Security Matters

Related articles

Letter questions whether Boehner was briefed on Benghazi ops

20121111_benghazi_petraeus_obama_clinton_LARGE-600x320By Catherine Herridge:

A letter from three relatives of the Benghazi attack victims is renewing questions over whether House Speaker John Boehner was briefed on covert operations in Libya and whether a proposed “Select Committee” might reveal politically damaging details.

At the same time, new reports and documents, reviewed by Fox News, are providing a broader picture of complex weapons-collection efforts in Libya – months after concerns were first raised that the U.S. was facilitating the movement of weapons, from Libya via Turkey, to Syrian rebels.

“Some analysts believe your inaction and passivity towards getting to the truth concerning Benghazi is because you were briefed on the intelligence and special operations activities in Libya,” the letter to Boehner said. It was signed by the father of former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, the mother and uncle of Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and 70 others including retired generals.

“You may possess ‘guilty knowledge,’” the letter alleges, before drawing a comparison to Nancy Pelosi’s conflict several years ago regarding the CIA’s interrogation program.

”We recall how then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi developed a form of ‘amnesia’ concerning a documented briefing she received on so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ – later termed ‘torture’ for political purposes.  Are you in the same position as your predecessor? Are you dodging a legitimate, thorough, coordinated investigation of Benghazi because it will damage your political position as Speaker?”

The letter questions why Boehner is resisting calls for an independent investigative committee – similar to the type of panel that investigated Watergate — when nearly 80 percent of House Republicans support it. Boehner last year indicated he was privy to classified information about U.S. operations in Libya.

In an interview with radio host Laura Ingraham in January 2013, Boehner was asked about reported weapons transfers raised by Sen. Rand Paul during questioning of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Benghazi. The speaker responded: “I’m somewhat familiar with the chatter about this and the fact that these arms were moving towards Turkey, but most of what I know about this came from a classified source, and really can’t elaborate on it.”

Fox News asked the speaker’s office to clarify his comments to Ingraham, in light of the Benghazi relatives’ letter, specifically whether Boehner  was briefed on the covert operations in Libya, and if those briefings covered weapons transfers.

Boehner’s spokesman emphasized that no one has been more dedicated to laying out the facts about Benghazi, adding: “The Speaker does not ever discuss classified information in public. In this case, he simply said he was aware of the rumors that were circulating publicly.”

During her January testimony on Benghazi, Paul pressed Clinton on the weapons issue, referring to reports that weapons from Libya were moving to the Syrian opposition via Turkey. “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?”

“To Turkey?” Clinton asked. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”

“It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons,”  Paul continued.

“And what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”

Clinton replied: “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency [CIA] that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”

“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.

“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”

After the hearing, the State Department’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Thomas B. Gibbons, wrote to Paul on Feb. 11, 2013. The letter said: ”… you asked whether the United States is involved in the transfer of weapons out of Libya to Turkey. The United States is not involved with any transfer of weapons from Libya to Turkey.”

But one month later, in March, a New York Times report claimed that the CIA was aiding Turkey and Middle Eastern governments in procuring weapons for the Syrian rebels since early 2012, “expanding a secret airlift” for the anti-Assad uprising. The newspaper reported that “senior White House officials were regularly briefed on the shipments.” The Times also reported that then-CIA Director David Petraeus was “instrumental” in the project.

Read more at Fox News

Also see:

Lessons of Iraq and A-Stan: Infidel Armies Can’t Win Islamic Hearts and Minds

Karzai and Rohani in Tehran, December 8, 2013

Karzai and Rohani in Tehran, December 8, 2013

by Diana West:

I am reposting a couple of columns below from 2009, written at a time before the Obama “surge” in Afghanistan, based on Bush’s “surge” in Iraq, was in full swing.

I have long argued that the Bush surge failed (explanation in three parts here). TheObama surge has failed, too, and for the same basic reason that has nothing to do with leaving Iraq “too soon,” or, I deeply hope, “leaving Afghanistan” in 2014. It is vital to stress that these failures are not due to the bravery and sacrifice and skill of our military forces. These forces have resolutely fufilled their impossible missions, to say the very least. The failures lie in war-planning and political strategy, ignorance and fecklessness, at the highest levels of the Bush and Obama White Houses, in the Pentagon, and in the Congress that failed to check them.

(To such ignorance and fecklessness we may also add an epic show of institutional callousness.)

The simple fact is that an army from Judeo-Christian lands cannot fight for the soul of an Islamic land.

This is the obvious but untaught and thus unlearned lesson of these past twelve years of tragic, costly wars. They call us “infidel.” We think that doesn’t matter. The Koran is their guide and they build their constitutions upon its laws. We help them do so and order our soldiers to risk their lives upholding theses sharia-supreme documents in the fantasy-name of  “universal” rights that exist nowhere but in the West. (See the madness begin here back in 2004). Meanwhile, sharia norms and masked Marxism are eroding liberty in the West while 99 percent of our political leaders do nothing.

They learn nothing, too. They set post-9/11 strategy in Iraq without seeing sharia norms and jihad doctrine as obstacles to “nation-building” on a (flawed) Western model — as though sharia and jihad can be eliminated as the authoritative foundations of Islamic culture by wish or denial. Such a  see-no-Islam strategy was doomed to fail, and so it did. But instead of retooling this failed strategy (which served mainly to the benefit of Iran, China and other enemies), they turned around and implemented it in Afghanistan.

We must win the people’s “hearts and minds,” Gen. Petraeus urged his men back in Iraq.

We must win the Afghans’ “trust,” Adm. Mullen and others   stressed (or buy it).

Thus, our soldiers were ordered to take hills of the Islamic mind-world that infidel armies can never attain.

We must respect their culture, the generals insisted, seeking more and more common ground, but ceding ground (metaphorical and real) instead. Vital ground.

We must protect the Afghan people (at the expense of our own), ordered the COIN corps generals, led by Petraeus, who infamously ordered:

“Walk. Stop by, don’t drive by. Patrol on foot whenever possible and engage the population. Take off your [ballistic] sunglasses. Situational awareness can be gained only by interacting face to face, not separated by ballistic glass or Oakleys.

Such “situational awareness” came at a great and tragic cost — but with little if any lasting benefit. Neither “protecting the population,” nor restricting ROEs, nor insanely profligate public works projects have permitted the infidel counterinsurgency to achieve its goals — winning Islamic hearts, minds or trust.

Cultural prostration hasn’t worked either, but not for want of trying.

We must respect their culture (no matter how barbaric). We must uphold their culture (no matter how vile). We must protect Islam, too. We must submit to its laws, and punish Americans who don’t. And punish Americans.

“Handle the Koran as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art,” a memo to Joint Task Force Guantanamo ordered in January 2003. That wasn’t enough. “We will hold sacred the beliefs held sacred by others,” ISAF declared in 2012.

Soon we will have new and enduring allies in the war on “terror.” What difference will it make if we can only fight together for the other side?

From April and August 2009 — over one thousand combat dead and thousands of combat wounded ago.

From April 3, 2009:

“What Do You Mean: If We Ever Want to Leave Afghanistan?”

From August 14, 2009:

“All Those Boots on the Ground and No Imprint.”

One Year Later: Why We Were in Benghazi

benghazi_dead_afpby JOHN SEXTON:

It has been nearly a year since the attack which killed four Americans in Benghazi. During that time various minute-by-minute accounts of the attack have been published. In addition, the administration’s decisions to refuse additional security requests and to revise its talking points after the attack have been examined in detail.

But Benghazi may be a case where most observers have missed the forest for the trees. This is not an attempt to add new information so much as it is to collate the information that already exists from the most reputable journalistic sources.

To begin with, Benghazi was a CIA operation involving weapons, one which had no cover beyond a small mission that provided a diplomatic fig leaf for the effort. Officially the CIA was there to track and collect dangerous weapons left over from the war that ousted Qaddafi. But the evidence suggests the CIA was also either tacitly or actively involved in a multi-national effort to ship those weapons to Syrian rebels. Our covert effort in Benghazi, Libya was connected to our escalating involvement in Syria.

The general outlines of this CIA effort have been reported. One fact which has not been highlighted is that the UN arms embargo of Libya, which the United States helped pass in 2011, makes shipping weapons in or out of the country a violation of international law. Indeed, the way the UN resolution is written even knowingly allowing such shipments to take place may be a violation of the agreement.

Arming Syrian Rebels

In 2012 the Obama administration publicly claimed it was working on diplomatic and humanitarian responses to the situation in Syria. But behind the scenes the United States was aware that a network of arms shipments was being created to support the rebels. This network involved shipping weapons from Qatar and later Libya to Turkey where they could be taken across the border and distributed to militias in Syria.

In June of 2012 the NY Times reported that a contingent of CIA agents were “operating secretly” in Turkey to help vet which groups would receive these weapons. But later reporting by the Times would indicate the CIA was doing more than vetting.

From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.

So the CIA was acting as a kind of personal shopping assistant. But according to an unnamed former official the network itself was the result of prodding by CIA director David Petraeus who encouraged various nations to work together toward the goal of arming the Syrian rebels. The flow of arms increased substantially throughout 2012 and really took off in the fall. But all of the shipments were still being transported and paid for by other nations.

That changed in June of this year the Obama administration convinced members of the intelligence committee to allow the CIA to begin contributing weapons directly to the existing arms pipeline. The decision was reported in the Guardian with Rep. Mike Rogers expressing doubt whether Obama’s policy would work. Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff was also concerned saying “It’s too late to affect the outcome with a small amount of arms.”

The WSJ reported at the time “The Central Intelligence Agency has begun moving weapons to Jordan from a network of secret warehouses and plans to start arming small groups of vetted Syrian rebels within a month, expanding U.S. support of moderate forces battling President Bashar al-Assad, according to diplomats and U.S. officials briefed on the plans.”

To sum up, the CIA encouraged the creation of a multi-national arms pipeline, helped shop for weapons to fill it, vetted the groups who would receive those weapons in Syria and, since June of 2013, contributed U.S. weapons to the mix. With that backdrop in place we can now return our attention to Libya.

There is much more at Breitbart

Sean Hannity interviews authors of Benghazi: The Definitive Report

coverupThe Right Scoop:

Yesterday Sean Hannity interviewed on his radio show Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb for their new book Benghazi: The Definitive Report. I’ve clipped a portion of their interview below which describes something very different than what we’ve ever heard about what led to the attack on the ‘consulate’ and the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods.

In short there were two operations going on in Benghazi, neither of which Stevens nor the CIA [Petraeus] were made aware, that made the situation on the ground in Benghazi far more dangerous than they even knew. We already know that Stevens was concerned about security, but he didn’t even know the full story.

One of the operations was direct raids against Al-Qaeda conducted by John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor, that instigated blowback in the form of the attack on our ‘consulate’ in Benghazi where Stevens visited that night. But because Stevens wasn’t made aware of these unilateral raids going on in his backyard, there was no way he could have even prepared himself for blowback. Stevens likely didn’t even know why he was being attacked the night he was killed.

Read more at The Right Scoop (with audio of the interview)

From Western Journalism:

Benghazi: The Definitive Report

coverupby :

This Tuesday, White House Counter-Terrorism adviser John Brennan will sit  down for the closed door classified portion of his confirmation hearing.   Brennan brings a lot of baggage to the table and has taken some fire from both  the Left and the Right for his support of para-military activities and so-called  Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.  This last week we’ve seen puff piece  after puff piece as our 4th Estate absolutely gushes over John Brennan to pump  him up for the confirmation hearings that will determine whether or not he will  be the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, filling the void left  by General Petraeus’ resignation.

Perhaps it is then a happy coincidence that the ebook I wrote with Brandon  Webb about Benghazi is coming out on the same day as Brennan’s classified  hearing.  The ebook will begin to peel back a few of the layers of secrecy  that have thus far protected John Brennan and some very shady activities  undertaken by the National Security Council.

The book includes many never before revealed details about the Libyan Civil  War and the post-war reconsolidation efforts undertaken by Private Military  Companies, the CIA, and Ambassador Chris Stevens.  This sets the stage for  the situation that led to the attack on the US Consulate (technically a  Temporary Mission Facility) in Benghazi.  We then tell it like it actually  happened that night and detail the heroic actions of Ty Woods and his fellow OGA  operators.  We will also shatter some myths and misconceptions about denied  air support and the resignation of General Petraeus.

Perhaps most damning is the question of why.  Why did the attack  happen?  What got AQIM elements operating under the Ansar Al-Sharia banner  so angry that they decided to over run the Consulate?  Perhaps events in  Egypt and a silly Youtube video helped some of the Sheiks mobilize a large group  of extremists but there is more to this situation.  Much more.   Ambassador Stevens and David Petraeus never could have seen what was  coming.  They were left in the lurch due to covert operations initiated by  the White House, a secret war in North Africa being orchestrated by John  Brennan.

Written by the team of former Special Operations warriors who run SOFREP.com,  here is the definitive account of what happened before, during, and after the  deadly Benghazi attack.

Read more at SOFREP

benghazi book

 

From The United West:

 

Petraeus Scandal Highlights Dangerous Weakness in U.S. Counterintelligence

 by John Guandolo

I travel across America teaching and briefing on the threat from the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement here and how they (and others) have insinuated themselves at the highest levels of our government and national security apparatus. The one question I most frequently get from Members of Congress, local/state/federal law enforcement, military and intelligence professionals, state legislators, and citizens is this:  How is it possible that the enemy has gained access to our senior leadership without any apparent resistance?  I believe the current scandal involving General Petraeus is instructive in answering this question.

Our greatest national security weakness from a leadership standpoint is the staggeringly unprofessional inability of U.S. leaders to discern between friend and foe. They simply appear to have no radar for an enemy who comes at them wearing a suit (or dress) and a smile.

At the center of the Petraeus scandal is a young attractive woman named Jill Kelley, whose complaints brought General Petraeus’ affair with Paula Broadwell to light.  Kelley, whose maiden name is Jill Khawam, is of Lebanese decent and her family arrived in the United States in the 1970’s.  She is the 37 year old wife of an oncologist in the Tampa, Florida area.  The U.S. military has described her as an “unpaid social liaison” – whatever that is.  Most importantly, through her social activities surrounding the military Jill Kelley managed to gain access to a large number of U.S. 4-star generals and admirals, many of whom have attended functions in her home.  And, according to sources, no one inside the military intelligence community has conducted any type of investigation into Mrs. Kelley’s background.  This raises serious counter-intelligence questions.

One must assume that all it takes to get close to senior American officials is to appear to be friendly and helpful, and you are in the door.  No need to look at any background information, facts or evidence.  Just take their word for it.  It works for the Muslim Brotherhood, so why not in other areas.

What is astonishing, is that at no point is there any indication, neither publicly or according to sources close to this issue, that anyone asked the right question.  Who is this woman?  What are her true intentions?

The U.S. Central Command responded to their own relationship with Jill Kelley by issuing a statement which included the following:  Jill Kelley held “no official position with the U.S. Central Command.  She is a volunteer and a private citizen, not an employee.”  This is true.  However, what Jill Kelley did have was influence.  She appears to be the kind of woman who can pick up a phone to any one of a number of 4-star generals, base commanders or the FBI, and get a response.  From an intelligence and counter-intelligence perspective, Mrs. Kelley bears many red flags of an intelligence officer, and her activities look an awful lot like a successful intelligence gathering operation.

To be clear, at this point in time, we cannot say – and I don’t believe – Jill Kelley is working on behalf of a foreign intelligence agency.  This may all simply be an unsavory affair gone public.  However, if she were working for a hostile foreign government, she would be given an award for her ability to be welcomed into the senior levels of the U.S. military without even a second look.  “Just look good, sound good, and tell them you want to do good, and the Americans will believe you.”  Words similar to these come right out of the playbooks of the Soviets, the Muslim Brotherhood, and many others.

Does America still have a counter-intelligence apparatus?  If so, it appears to be non-functional above the GS-14 paygrade.

Here are the questions Americans should be asking themselves and their elected officials:  1) How is someone like Jill Kelley able to get very close to and have relationships with so many senior American military officers without a formal vetting process or investigation?  (2) Is their formal and detailed counter-intelligence training for American civilian and military leaders which trains them to be aware of, identify, and report attempted penetrations and recruitments by foreign intelligence services?  (hint: the answer is no – a one hour online course every three years doesn’t count); (3) Do the standard procedures for vetting government employees and contractors for security clearances readily highlight counter-intelligence threats? (hint: the answer is no).

Read more at Breitbart

Petraeus and Allen: Non-Combatant, General Disgraces

Colonel Douglas Macgregor (US Army retired)

By Andrew Bostom

Unlike Generals David Petraeus and John Allen, Colonel Douglas Macgregor (US Army retired), is an actual combat veteran, and innovative, iconoclastic PhD military strategist. After one year at the Virginia Military Institute, and four years at West Point, Macgregor was commissioned in the U.S. Army during 1976

As described by US News reporter Richard J. Newman (July 28,  1997. “Renegades Finish Last. A Colonel’s Innovative Ideas Don’t Sit Well with the Brass”. U.S. News & World Report 123 (4): 35), Macgregor was the “squadron operations officer who essentially directed the Battle of 73 Easting in the 1991 Gulf War. Under Macgregor’s  bold leadership, U.S. troops with 10 tanks and 13 Bradley fighting vehicles destroyed almost 70 Iraqi Republican Guard opponent, armored vehicles without any U.S. casualties during a 23 minute span of the battle. Moreover, positioned towards the front of the battle and involved in firing, Macgregor didn’t “request artillery support or report events to superiors until the battle was virtually over, according to one of his superior officers.”

My colleagues Diana West and AJ Rice, directed me to print and radio interview comments, respectively, that Colonel Macgregor has provided in the aftermath of the salacious allegations against Generals Petraeus and Allen.

Macgregor is singularly unimpressed with the military leadership record of these men—the Army’s Petraeus, Allen of the Marines—noting that both lacked personal combat experience, having, “never pulled a trigger” or “lead soldiers in direct fire battle.” Nonetheless, Macgregor observes, Petraeus and Allen created faux heroic identities and  succeeded in their egotistical quest for military promotion.

Macgregor’s withering critique of Petraeus includes these comments made to Time reporter Mark Thompson:

Petraeus is a remarkable piece of fiction created and promoted by neocons in government, the media and academia. How does an officer with no personal experience of direct fire combat in Panama or Desert Storm become a division CDR in 2003, man who for 35 years shamelessly reinforced whatever dumb idea his superior advanced regardless of its impact on soldiers, let alone the nation, a man who served repeatedly as a sycophantic aide-de-camp, military assistant and executive officer to four stars get so far? How does the same man who balked at closing with and destroying the enemy in 2003 in front of Baghdad agree to sacrifice more than a thousand American lives and destroy thousands of others installing Iranian national power in Baghdad with a surge that many in and out of uniform warned against? Then, how does this same man repeat the self-defeating tactics one more time in Afghanistan? The answer is simple: Petraeus was always a useful fool in the Leninist sense for his political superiors — Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Gates.

Entirely consistent with their apparent moral lapses, but infinitely worse in effect, is the fact that both of these zero combat experience generals have been avatars of the delusive, self-destructive “see No Islam/Jihad” counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine which has fatally sacrificed or maimed thousands of our brave troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, to no avail. Petraeus is gone, Allen should be fired, and let us pray good riddance to their failed, morally depraved ideology follows swiftly, as well.

Petraeus Betrayed His Country Before He Betrayed His Wife

Diana West

Was David Petraeus as great a general as the write-ups of his downfall routinely claim? This is a provocative question that I will begin to answer with another question: Did America prevail in the Iraq War? I suspect few would say “yes” and believe it, which is no reflection on the valor and sacrifice of the American and allied troops who fought there. On the contrary, it was the vaunted strategy of the two-step Petraeus “surge” that was the blueprint of failure.

While U.S. troops carried out Part One successfully by fighting to establish basic security, the “trust” and “political reconciliation” that such security was supposed to trigger within Iraqi society never materialized in Part Two. Meanwhile, the “Sunni awakening” lasted only as long as the U.S. payroll for Sunni fighters did.

Today, Iraq is more an ally of Iran than the United States (while dollars keep flowing to Baghdad). This failure is one of imagination as much as strategy. But having blocked rational analysis of Islam from entering into military plans for the Islamic world, the Bush administration effectively blinded itself and undermined its own war-making capacity. In this knowledge vacuum, David Petraeus’ see-no-Islam counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine would fill but not satisfy the void.

The basis of COIN is “population protection” — Iraqi populations, Afghan populations — over “force protection.” Or, as lead author David Petraeus wrote in the 2007 Counterinsurgency Field Manual: “Ultimate success in COIN is gained by protecting the populace, not the COIN force.” (“COIN force” families must have loved that.) Further, the Petraeus COIN manual tells us: “The more successful the counterinsurgency is, the less force can be used and the more risk can be accepted.” “Less force” and “more risk” translate into highly restrictive rules of engagement.

More risk accepted by whom? By U.S. forces. Thus we see how, at least in the eyes of senior commanders, we get the few, the proud, the sacrificial lambs. And sacrificed to what? A theory.

The Petraeus COIN manual continues: “Soldiers and Marines may also have to accept more risk to maintain involvement with the people.” As Petraeus wrote in a COIN “guidance” to troops in 2010 upon assuming command in Afghanistan: “The people are the center of gravity. Only by providing them security and earning their trust and confidence can the Afghan government and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) prevail.” That was a theory, too. Now, after two long COIN wars, we know it was wrong.

COIN doctrine approaches war from an ivory tower, a place where such theories thrive untested and without hurting anyone. On the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, however, the results have been catastrophic. Tens of thousands of young Americans answered their country’s call and were told to accept more “risk” and less “protection.” Many lost lives, limbs and pieces of their brains as a result of serving under a military command structure and government in thrall to a leftist ideology that argues, in defiance of human history, that cultures, beliefs and peoples are all the same, or want to be.

Attributing such losses to Petraeus’ see-no-Islam COIN is no exaggeration. In his 2010 COIN guidance, Petraeus told troops: “Walk. Stop by, don’t drive by. Patrol on foot whenever possible and engage the population.” As the Los Angeles Times reported last year, “The counterinsurgency tactic that is sending U.S. soldiers out on foot patrols among the Afghan people, rather than riding in armored vehicles, has contributed to a dramatic increase in arm and leg amputations, genital injuries and the loss of multiple limbs following blast injuries.”

Indeed, the military has had to devise a new category of injury — “dismounted complex blast injury” — while military medicine has had to pioneer, for example, new modes of “aggressive pain management at the POI (point of injury)” and “phallic reconstruction surgery.”

But not even such COIN sacrifices have won the “trust” of the Islamic world. On the contrary, we have seen spiraling rates of murder by our Muslim “partners” — camouflaged by the phrase “green on blue” killings. COIN commanders, ever mindful of winning (appeasing) “hearts and minds,” blame not the Islamic imperatives of jihad but rather summer heat, Ramadan fasting and the “cultural insensitivity” of the murder victims themselves. Such is the shameful paralysis induced by COIN, whose manual teaches: “Arguably, the decisive battle is for the people’s minds. … While security is essential to setting the stage for overall progress, lasting victory comes from a vibrant economy, political participation and restored hope.”

Notice the assumption that something called “overall progress” will just naturally follow “security.” Another theory. It didn’t happen in Iraq. It hasn’t happened in Afghanistan. Since nothing succeeds like failure, the doctrine’s leading general was rewarded with the directorship of the CIA.

There is more at work here than a foundationally flawed strategy. In its drive to win Islamic hearts and minds, COIN doctrine has become an engine of Islamization inside the U.S. military. To win a Muslim population’s “trust,” U.S. troops are taught deference to Islam — to revere the Quran; not to spit toward Mecca (thousands of miles away); and to condone such un- or anti-Western practices as religious supremacism, misogyny, polygamy, pederasty and cruelty to dogs. Our military has even permitted Islamic law to trump the First Amendment to further COIN goals, as when ISAF commander Petraeus publicly condemned an American citizen for exercising his lawful right to freedom of speech to burn a Quran.

This explains why the reports that CIA director David Petraeus went before the House Intelligence Committee in September and blamed a YouTube Muhammad video for the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, sounded so familiar. Whatever his motivation, it was all too easy for Petraeus to make free speech the scapegoat for Islamic violence. But so it goes in COIN-world, where jihad and Shariah (Islamic law) are off the table and the First Amendment is always to blame.

If there is a lesson here, it is simple: A leader who will betray the First Amendment will betray anything.

PICKET: Al Qaeda didn’t just disappear from CIA’s original Benghazi memo but also from FBI counter-terror lexicon

By Kerry Picket

Lawmakers told reporters on Capitol Hill Friday that former CIA Director  David Petraeus testified that the White House edited out “Al Qaeda’s  involvement” from the agency’s original talking points. According to Fox News: (bolding is mine)

Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the  Obama administration’s handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying Friday  that references to “Al Qaeda involvement” were stripped from his agency’s  original talking points — while other intelligence officials were unable to say  who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News that  intelligence officials who testified in a closed-door hearing a day earlier,  including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA  Director Mike Morell, said they did not know who changed the talking points. He  said they went out to multiple departments, including the State Department,  National Security Council, Justice Department and White House.

“To me the question right now is who changed those talking points and  why. … I’d say it was somebody in the administration had to have taken it  out,” King told Fox News. “That, to me, has to be  pursued.”

But should that really be a surprise, though? As pointed out by Liz Sheld of  Breitbart News, the piece I wrote on September 27 showed that even  the FBI counter-terrorism manual does not include the term “Al – Qaeda.” In  fact, it does not even include the terms: Jihad, Hamas, Hizbollah, or Muslim  Brotherhood. PJ Media’s Patrick Poole found this  counter-terrorism document that the FBI attempted to claim did not exist.

As I pointed out previously:

The Obama administration’s response to media inquires over what happened  during the deadly terrorist attack on our U.S. consulate in Libya that took the  lives of four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador, has been that it is  currently under investigation. However, according to CNN, the FBI is only investigating the attack from  afar and “bureaucratic infighting between the FBI and Justice Department, and  the State Department on the other” appears to be delaying the investigation.:  (bolding is mine)

FBI agents have not yet been granted access to investigate in the eastern  Libyan city, and the crime scene has not been secured, sources said.

“They’ve gotten as far as Tripoli now, but they’ve never gotten to Benghazi,”  CNN National Security Analyst Fran Townsend said Wednesday, citing senior law  enforcement officials.

Last Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters that an  FBI team had reached Libya earlier in the week.

“In fairness to the secretary, it may be that she wanted to be coy about  where they were in Libya for security concerns. That’s understandable. But the  fact is, it’s not clear they’ve been in Libya for very long,” Townsend said on  CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360°.”

“They had difficulty, and we understand there was some bureaucratic  infighting between the FBI and Justice Department on the one hand, and the State  Department on the other, and so it took them longer than they would have liked  to get into country. They’ve now gotten there. But they still are unable to get  permission to go to Benghazi.”

FBI agents have made a request through the U.S. State Department for  the crime scene to be secured, Townsend said, but that has not  happened.

“The senior law enforcement official I spoke to said, ‘If we get  there now, it’s not clear that it will be of any use to us,'” Townsend  said.

The FBI team has conducted interviews of State Department and U.S. government  personnel who were in Libya at the time of the attack, Townsend said, but the  FBI’s request to directly question individuals who Libyan authorities have in  custody was denied.

It took the administration over one week to declare the attack on the  consulate in Benghazi was indeed a “terrorist” attack and many wondered why the  declaration took so long. Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly reported that sources  told Fox News that U.S. intelligence knew that the strike against the consulate  was the work of terrorists within 24 hours of the attack.  So why the delay  in the actual declaration from the administration?

Read more at Washington Times

 

Chief Intelligence Correspondent, Herridge, Gives NEW INFO on BenghaziGate

Chief Intelligence Correspondent, Catherine Herridge: “There’s no way the administration can deny that they did not know what was happening in Benghazi, in real-time”.

Herridge:”Senator McCain told me, that he is incredibly disappointed with the CIA Director (David Petraeus)…. someone who for many years, has been untouchable, because of his military accomplishment, and there has not been a good explanation. I believe, that much of this will come back to WEAPONS… and the movement of WEAPONS out of Libya, to Turkey, and then into Syria…”.

If there wasn’t a leftist liberal leading the Senate, Barack Hussein Obama would probably be impeached for smuggling guns to Syria. This cover-up gets bigger everyday.

 

See also The Counter Jihad Report’s You Tube Channel Benghazi Playlist

Media Blackout: Aside from FOX, Sunday News Hosts Fail to Raise Benghazi (breitbart.com)

via LittlebytesNews: Benghazigate call to action –> Patriots, WE NEED A FULL COURT PRESS ALL THIS WEEK!

 

Contact the media and demand coverage of the Benghazi scandal and thank Fox News for their excellent reporting:

FAIR’s Media Contact List

Let your voice be heard! Talk back to the media.


Network/Cable Television

ABC News 147 Columbus Ave., New York, NY 10023 Phone: 212-456-7777 Good Morning America: email form Nightline: email form 20/20: email form

 

BBC Television Center, Wood Lance, London, W12 7RJ, United Kingdom Phone: 44 20 8743 8000 Website: feedback page

 

BBC America 747 Third Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-705-9300 Website: email form

CBS News524 W. 57 St., New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-975-4321

 

Email forms for all CBS news programs CBS Evening News: evening@cbsnews.com The Early Show: earlyshow@cbs.com 60 Minutes II: 60m@cbsnews.com 48 Hours: 48hours@cbsnews.com Face The Nation: ftn@cbsnews.com

 

CNBC 900 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Phone: 201-735-2622 Email: info@cnbc.com

CNN One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30303-5366 Phone: 404-827-1500 Email forms for all CNN news programs

 

Fox News Channel 1211 Ave. of the Americas, New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-301-3000 comments@foxnews.comList of Email addresses for all Fox News Channel programs Special Report With Bret Baier: special@foxnews.com Fox Report With Shepard Smith: Foxreport@foxnews.com The O’Reilly Factor: oreilly@foxnews.com Hannity: hannity@foxnews.com, On the Record With Greta: ontherecord@foxnews.com

 

MSNBC/NBC30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112 Phone: 212-664-3720List of Email addresses for all MSNBC/NBC news programs Dateline NBC:dateline@nbcuni.com Hardball with Chris Matthews: http://thechrismatthewsshow.com/html/contact.html MSNBC Reports with Joe Scarborough: email form NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams: nightly@nbc.com NBC News Today: today@nbc.com NBC Weekend Today: WT@nbc.com

 

PBS2100 Crystal Drive, Arlington VA 22202-3785 Phone: 703-739-5000 , Phone: 703-739-5290 (Ombudsman) 

The NewsHour (corrections and complaints): onlineda@newshour.orgg Frontline: frontlineworld@flworld.org Ombud Michael Getler Email


National Radio Programs

National Public Radio 635 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001-3753 Phone: 202-513-2000
List of Email addresses for all NPR news programs List of phone numbers for all NPR news programs

 

The Rush Limbaugh Show 1270 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020 Phone (on air): 800-282-2882 (Between 12 and 3 PM)
E-mail: ElRushbo@eibnet.com 

 

Sean Hannity Show Phone (on air): 800-941-7326 (3-6 PM Mon-Fri) Sean Hannity:212-613-3800  James Grisham, Producer: 212-613-3832 E-mail: Phil Boyce, Program Director phil.boyce@citcomm.com Email: the Sean Hannity Show 


National Newspapers

The Los Angeles Times 202 West First Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone: 213-237-5000

L.A. Times Contact Information by Department Letters to the Editor: email form Readers’ Representative: readers.representative@latimes.com

The New York Times620 8th Ave., New York, NY 10018 Phone: 212-556-1234 D.C. Bureau phone: 202-862-0300

Letters to the Editor (for publication): letters@nytimes.com Write to the news editors: news-tips@nytimes.com Corrections: nytnews@nytimes.com New York Times Contact Information by Department How to Contact New York Times Reporters and Editors

 

USA Today 7950 Jones Branch Dr., McLean, VA 22108 Phone: 703-854-3400

Corrections: accuracy@usatoday.com Give feedback to USA Today

The Wall Street Journal 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-416-2000

Letters to the Editor: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com Comment on News Articles: wsjcontact@dowjones.com Comment on News Coverage:newseditors@wsj.com Submit Op-Ed

The Washington Post 1150 15th St., NW, Washington, DC 20071 Phone: 202-334-6000 Ombudsman: 202-334-7582

Letters to the Editor: letters@washpost.com Ombudsman: ombudsman@washpost.com Contact Washington Post Writers and Editors


Magazines

Newsweek 7 Hanover Square, Newyork, Ny, 10004 Phone: 212-445-4000

Letters to the Editor: letters@newsweek.com

Time Time & Life Bldg., Rockefeller Center, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020-1393 Phone: 212-522-1212

Letters to the Editor letters@time.com

 


NewsServices/Wires

Associated Press 450 West 33rd St., New York, NY 10001 Phone: 212-621-1500

General Questions and Comments: info@ap.org Partial Contact Information for the Associated Press by Department and Bureau

 

ReutersThree Times Square, New York, NY 10036 Telephone: 646-223-4000

Reuters Editorial Feedback

 

United Press International1133 19th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202-898-8000

Comments and Tips: newstips@upi.org


FAIR wants to hear about your media activism. Please send copies of your letters to journalists to

FAIR 104 W. 27th St. 10th Floor New York, NY 10001 fair@fair.org