How Barack Obama Ends Wars

barack_michelle_salute_APBreitbart, By Frank Gaffney, Jr.:

In discussing last week his decision to eliminate essentially all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the time his term of office ends, Mr. Obama declared:  “This is how wars end in the 21st Century – not through signing ceremonies but through decisive blows against our adversaries, transitions to elected governments, security forces who are trained to take the lead and ultimately full responsibility.”

Actually, how Barack Obama ends wars is by what amounts to surrendering to our undefeated adversaries, undermining elected governments by emboldening those determined to destroy them, and abandoning local security forces who lack the capability to prevail.

The President’s exchange this weekend of “prisoner of war” Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five of the world’s most dangerous jihadists is a microcosm of his way of waging–and losing–wars. Consider the following features of this odious act of appeasement and its roll-out.

  •          The exchange was unbalanced:  We purchased at exceedingly high cost the freedom of an American described by his comrades as a deserter. It appears that by abandoning his sentinel’s post in the dark of night, he not only jeopardized their lives, but he set in train searches and tactical situations that cost the lives of numerous other servicemen.

Treating Bergdahl as some sort of heroic figure because of his five years in self-induced captivity is a further assault on the principles of integrity, discipline, and honor that have been central to the character and culture of the U.S. military for generations. This is not an accident. Destroying that culture happens to be a well-established feature of Team Obama’s social engineering of the armed forces.

  •         The price paid to achieve Bergdahl’s freedom was to release no fewer than five of the Taliban’s senior commanders to the custody of Qatar. Let’s take what’s wrong with this picture, piece by piece:

First, the Qatari government is on the other side in the War for the Free World. It is a bankroller of al Qaeda in Syria (and perhaps elsewhere): the enabler of the Muslim Brotherhood, the underwriter of the enemy’s propaganda arm, al Jazeera, etc. Trusting the Qataris to be helpful to us with regard to anything having to do with jihad is worse than willful blindness; it is national security malfeasance.

Second, the best case is that these guys will be out of the fight for one more year. Since the administration won’t say what restrictions will be imposed on them in the interim, however, it is a safe bet they will be doing whatever they can to contribute to their terrorist organization’s return to power as soon as possible. But even if that were not the case, in the long war the United States is abandoning, a year is nothing for those determined to defeat us.

  •          To complete this exchange, President Obama violated the law, something he has done relentlessly in the course of his presidency.  (To appreciate just how often, see Andrew C. McCarthy’s splendid new book, Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.) The fact that Eric Holder’s Justice Department gave Chuck Hagel’s Defense Department a fig-leaf for doing so by claiming extenuating circumstances–namely, concerns about Bergdahl’s deteriorating health–does not alter the reality that Obama and Company did not conform to the statute requiring a 30-day pre-notification to Congress.
  •          Adding insult to injury is the fact that Bergdahl does not seem to be ill, let alone near death’s door. National Security Advisor Susan Rice said on Sunday the he is “in good health” and he has reportedly been released from the hospital in Germany where his medical condition was assessed post-release. Of course, he may have lingering psychological problems, but then that may have been the case before he deserted. Either way, there is no justification there for the president ignoring the law.
  •         Speaking of Susan Rice, her interviews on two Sunday talk shows this weekend vividly called to mind the notorious, serial appearances she turned in on five such programs in September 2012. Now, as then, she was the dutiful–almost robotic–spinner, relentlessly sticking to her misleading, if not patently fraudulent talking points.

Two years ago, Rice engaged in what amounted to lying about the murderous attacks in Benghazi, by insisting they were the result of a video, not jihadist attacks.  This meme, we recently learned, was manufactured by a man who is now her Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes.  It was explicitly designed by him to deflect politically problematic attention in the run-up to the 2012 election from questions about the President’s claims that al Qaeda was on the path to defeat, and other national security frauds.

This weekend, Rice reprised her role as untrustworthy flack by relentless insisting we have a “sacred duty not to leave anyone behind”–a duty that neither she nor any other senior Obama administration official seemed to feel while the Benghazi attacks were underway. All the while, she deflected questions that would have illuminated the reality of the Bergdahl exchange–the exorbitant price we paid, how the exchange was conducted under false pretenses, the dire implications with respect to strengthening our enemies and the lack of real justification for violating the law.

With the Bergdahl exchange, Americans are on notice: Unless this episode proves to be a very costly one for Team Obama, the President is on a trajectory not only to lose Afghanistan, as we previously lost Iraq. He will also ignore statutory inhibitions on releasing the rest of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay and close that facility, foreclosing its use by a successor. The upshot of all this will be to establish that the way Barack Obama “ends wars in the 21st Century” is going to get a lot more of us killed.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. formerly acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan.  He is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for Breitbart News Network and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio.

SGT. BERGDAHL: WHAT WE ARE NOT BEING TOLD

bowe-bergdahl-usarmyBreitbart, by DR. SEBASTIAN GORKA:

The inconsistencies and suspicious aspects of Sgt. Bergdahl’s release and exchange for five Taliban commanders would strain the credulity of an episode of the national security drama Homeland.

Unfortunately, however, this is reality and part of a war in which thousands of Americans, civilian and uniformed alike, have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Those in the administration who authorized negotiations with the terrorists who are ideologically allies to those responsible for the murders of September 11th, 2001 will have to answer these questions:

    • How did Sgt. Bergdahl fall into the hands of the Enemy? The official version is that he left his post without permission, yet on a video his captors released, Bergdahl says he was the Tail-End Charlie of a foot patrol and became separated. Which is it? Did he go AWOL? Will he be charged with desertion?
    • Why did his father – who wears a full beard typical of fundamentalist Salafi Muslims – praise Allah in Arabic in the press conference with the Commander-in-Chief in front of the White House?
    • Why did the Haqqani Network, one of the deadliest jihadi groups in the world, agree to exchange Bergdahl for five commanders from the Afghan Taliban who are not members of the Haqqani Network? Instead of, for example, for Mali Kahn another Guantanamo detainee who is a senior Haqqani commander.
    • According to his friends and those that know him, Bergdahl joined the military in order to help the Afghan people and provide “philanthropic support to the war effort.” When did we change US Armed Forces recruiting protocols and start looking for charity workers instead of professional soldiers for our infantry?
    • At the strategic level, what response will the administration have to all the allied nations, including France, Spain, and Italy, to whom we have insisted since 2001 that they do not negotiate with terrorists for the release of their nationals and who did as we requested?
  • Lastly, what other concessions is the Obama White House prepared to make with the Enemy?

With this move, more than any other, President Obama violated a fundamental premise of American National Security which has both a moral and strategic rationale: that we do not negotiate with terrorists.

We do not negotiate with terrorists because in their willful targeting of the weak they embody evil, and because when you give in to evil, evil grows.

Now we have sent a message to all jihadists around the world: capture an American and America will do your bidding.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka has been appointed to Major General Horner Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University and is National Security Affairs Editor for Breitbart.com.

Also see:

Allies, Adversaries and the Right to Self-Defense

negotiatingby Ali Salim:

Critics of those who defend the free world from its adversaries accuse governments and security forces of wiretapping public figures, including friendly governments, and of conducting drone-executed targeted killings as an accepted form of warfare.

But is anyone looking at who, exactly, is criticizing the Western world’s actions that defend it against terrorism? Do they really believe that terrorism can be successfully fought without violence? Criticism, even if justified, can sabotage a just battle and people’s right to self-defense.

According to the Arabic proverb, “If you honor and respect a noble man, he will become your friend, but if you honor and respect a villain, he will rise up against you.”

One view of diplomacy, deemed misguided by leaders such as Churchill, is to abandon one’s friends and court one’s enemies in the assumption that the friend is yours and will not abandon you. The United States deserted the Shah for the Ayatollah’s Revolutionary Guards; it abandoned Mubarak for the Muslim Brotherhood Islamist Mohamed Morsi, and it has abandoned Iraq and Afghanistan to domestic chaos, growing terrorism and the approaching Islamist takeover.

Now, voices from the West and the Middle East have suggested that the status of the United States may be in jeopardy in countries where it previously had influence, such as Egypt.

The U.S. is withholding funding from the new Sisi regime, which may be the only chance of keeping Egypt from slipping back into the religious autocracy of the Muslim Brotherhood. America explained that its decision to cut funding to Egypt was due to lack of democratic process in Sisi’s advancement to power. Ironically, however, America has weakened the defenses of the world against violent Islamism, which can be defined as a militant political version of Islam, that outspokenly desires to take over the Arab-Muslim countries and turn them into a united base from which to bring Islam to the rest of the world. This goal, according to the Islamists, can be accomplished through irhab, or terrorism, with the eventual aim of converting everyone to Islam, using force if necessary. As it is written in the Noble Qur’an, Al-Anfal 8:60, “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war to strike fear into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah, and your enemies…” Neutralizing the fight against Islamism in the name of democracy and pluralism sounds like justifying theft and drug dealing in the name of freedom to earn a living.

*******

In the war on terrorism the West cannot afford to flip-flop or apologize. Terrorism needs to be struck hard and all the relative advantages need to be used — wiretapping, drones, targeted killings and sanctions — against both terrorist groups and countries that sponsor terrorism, such as Iran.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Obama, a National Security Disaster

Obama Iran Policy Contradicts Interests of Iranian Grassroots

by MANSUR RASTANI, PHD at FSM:

For decades, the United States has been among the countries that have suffered massively from the Islamic Republic of Iran’s (IRI’s) sponsorship of terrorism worldwide. It all started in 1979 when the Islamic regime ordered the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in which 66 Americans were held hostage for 444 days.

Later in 1983, the suicide bombing of U.S. military barracks in Beirut executed by the Islamic Jihad Organization, an Iranian regime’s terror proxy, left 299 Americans dead. The Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 carried out by IRI-supported groups of Hezbollah resulted in death of 19 U.S. service men. 60% of all American combat casualties in Iraq and 50% of combat casualties in Afghanistan have been caused by IRI-made IEDs. More importantly the footprint of IRI’s terrorism in America became more apparent when the U.S. District Court ruled that Iran was behind the 9/11 Attacks.

American soldiers bring hope and leave graves in every corner of the world; they take bullets to protect the national interests of the country. Their lives are shattered to keep democracy alive. To a Commander-in-Chief, they are like his family members and their deaths are indirectly a loss of a family member to him. Mr. President, you don’t negotiate and you don’t deal with the terrorists who continuously murder your family members, you should do exactly what must be done with the murderers: hold them accountable by arresting and putting them on trial. That is what a Commander-in-Chief, who cares about the lost lives of his soldiers, does.

The bitterer tragedy of the IRI’s sponsorship of terrorism has been the mark it has made on its domestic victims, the Iranian people inside the country, who have been under the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion by this terrorist state from its get-go. The Cinema Rex fire was the first act of genocide of the IRI shortly before it came to power, which resulted in the burning to death of over 400 innocent individuals. As the IRI came to power, the regime started mass executing the top officials from the predecessor government. In 1988, an act of violence unprecedented in Iranian history, was committed by the genocidal regime of Iran, the systematic execution of thousands of political prisoners across the country, which lasted for about five continuous months and resulted in the killing of as many as 30,000 prisoners. Any democratic government in the world is established based on its people’s will; the Islamic government in Iran, by contrast, is run and carried on by imposing terror, violence, and fear among its public. The regime has fortified its hold on power by resorting to arbitrary arrests, detentions, rapes, torture, and extrajudicial executions.

The “alarming” rise in Iran’s extrajudicial execution rate has underscored the warning sign of mass atrocities in the country, a clear indication of the regime’s ongoing silent genocide of political, social, ethnic, and religious groups.  Additionally, the Iranian regime maintains a policy of “religious Apartheid” toward religious minorities in Iran – like the Christians, Baha’is and Zoroastrians, amongst others. Similarly, the regime advocates “sexual apartheid” in the country, where women and men are segregated from each other and women are deprived of their rights.

Mr. President, The mass murders in Iran have outrageously taken place on the watch of six U.S. presidents – Carter, Reagan, Clinton, GHW Bush, GW Bush, and Obama, yet none of those presidents has done anything beyond rhetorical condemnation against the atrocity, genocide, and apartheid acts of the IRI regime. Over the past few decades, the international community, including the U.S., has largely stood by and watched while mass atrocities in Iran occurred. The lack of leaders bothered by their conscience and the lack of effective response options has sapped the will of governments in responding to these unprecedented crimes against humanity.

Sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that should be revoked if a regime commits acts of atrocity and genocide against its own people. Now is the time for the international communities to protect the rights of the oppressed Iranian people and save them from the long-drawn-out genocide in Iran by putting an end to the sovereignty of the IRI regime, which indeed belongs to the grassroots people of Iran.

Mr. President, the above-mentioned atrocious acts occurred when the IRI was still far from the nuclear threshold. How, then, is an Iranian regime emboldened by nuclear acquisition likely to behave?   For more than a decade Americans have heard from different U.S. presidents that an Iranian nuclear weapon is “unacceptable.” Despicably, nothing more than a protracted approach of incrementally tightened nonpolitical sanctions with Iranian people as its main burdened target, and diplomacy with the regime for a containment routine, have been utilized to stop the IRI’s nuclear threat.

Years, if not decades, of diplomacy have led nowhere; consequently Iran blusters, threatens, and continues to work furiously to obtain nuclear weapons, with the patent support of Russia and China.  Mr. President, as a result of your promise to “embrace a new era of engagement” with America’s enemies, each passing day this potentially antagonistic regime is getting closer to witnessing a celebration in Tehran for the testing its first atomic bomb. The IRI Mullahs believe it is their responsibility to bring about nuclear war to facilitate the coming of the last Islamic Messiah.

Such a theocratic regime that values martyrdom more than life, even if lacks the technology for building the nuclear warhead, when the time calls, the IRI hardliners and fanatic leaders can easily promote the proliferation of dirty nuclear bombs and make them available in the hands of their terrorist proxies across the world. Any type of negotiation with the terrorist IRI regime not only undermines the repressive measures of the regime against its people but would passively underpin the acceptance of the perpetual IRI nuclear blackmail. Only adopting a policy of collapsing the power structure of the terrorist regime of IRI would put an end to its escalating nuclear threat.

Mr. President, during the Iranian uprising in June 2009 you abandoned the oppressed people of Iran when they asked for your support. Furthermore you chose to take sides with the terrorists and extended your outstretched hand to the eradicator regime of IRI. Mr. President, you don’t negotiate with a regime that commits act of atrocities and genocide against its own people, maintains a policy of apartheid inside the country, sponsors terrorism across the globe, has ties to Al Qaida, throws threats at the regional states, interferes in the affairs of neighboring countries, attacks U.S. interests anywhere in the world, kills the best men of United States Armed Forces, and pursues acquiring a nuclear arsenal. The outcome of such negotiations and diplomacy would only help to strengthen the terrorists and to passively legitimize their actions.

Read more…