re: "Ogabe Administration Makes it Official: Terror and Islam are Non-Related"

Emperor Misha at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler ("HQ of the Rottweiler Empire. An Affiliate of the VRWC.") has no tolerance for those who would use political correctness as a weapon to disarm us.

Money quote(s):

"(I)t’s henceforth not permissible to use the words “muslim” and “islam” in anti-terror training (h/t Protein Wisdom)"

This sort of thing is going to lead to a seriously messed-up "The-Emperor-Has-No-Clothes" moment. Pres. Bush's "religion of peace" pronouncement has been renewed and expanded under his successor administration to the point where it's impermissible to even consider that perhaps, in just this one little thing, Pres. Bush may have been wrong.

(Pres. Bush may have even known he was wrong, but in CAA's opinion #43 was attempting to head off the Huntington-esque "clash of civilizations" that UBL so desperately wanted to spark.)*

"What “muslim groups” are offended that a “religion” closely tied to 99.99999999999% of terrorism attacks might be mentioned in materials used to train law enforcement to combat terrorism attacks? "

Can you guess?

"The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial."

CAIR. What a surprise. Which reminds me. I need to make sure the Holy Land Foundation documents are linked in my sidebar.

10/21

* It occurs to CAA that #43's understandable reluctance to make this an us-versus-them fight in the near-term with the entirety of the Islamic world, but at the risk of handicapping our efforts in the longer-term, somewhat parallels #41's decision, after 100 hours of combat in Gulf War I, to accept Saddam's ceasefire rather than take Baghdad and inherit the mess that was/is Iraq.

In other words, an understandable and justifiable decision in the short- and near-term timeframes which ends up costing the nation even more dearly over the long run.

re: "The Rocket's Red Glare of the Occasional Sortie...."

Deebow at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") is following U.S. war news in the foreign press (which means he receives information, not cheer-leading).

Money quote(s):

" "KABLUEY!" in a bad way would be the way I would describe how the current president is experiencing his military successes, particularly in Libya, where the rocket's red glare and the bombs bursting in air are currently giving way to Qaddafi's flag still being there."

Way back when Gulf War I was being televised on CNN, there was talk of how it all looked like a video game: grainy and detached, bloodless and antiseptic.

This also fostered an illusion of military omnipotence.

Sure. Our guys, and their gizmos, are good. But they're not all-powerful. And sometimes the biggest bang, even if properly applied, isn't going to result in the outcome you want.

Back when dinosaurs (and Soviets) roamed the Earth, your humble scribe learned a bit of wisdom working with nuclear weapons systems: There is a proper tool for every task.

Maybe NATO airstrikes aren't the perfect tool for this task. Oh, and what exactly are this task's objectives?

"(W)ith more word games from the State Department, and diplomats don't run combat operations for a very good reason, the bombs bursting in air is likely to continue" (Bold typefaced added for emphasis. - CAA.)

No offense taken, at least not by me, and I'm a lot closer by temprament and training to actually being able to run combat operations than most of my diplomatic peers. After all, it's not what diplomats are either trained or selected/promoted to do. Nor should they be.

"(T)here is no such thing as a "passive" exchange of fire, if you don't believe me, look it up in your PIO reference guide or your protocol handbook, but since you might not have time because you are tying yourself in knots trying to explain this, I will clear it up for you; anytime you are dropping bombs on someone, you are "actively" exchanging fire. Just because they don't shoot back, it doesn't change the nature of the transaction..."

Good point. Valid point, simply put. (Perhaps this isn't something covered in law school.)

"This is what happens when you lead from the rear, and if our mission continues to be murky and gets continually redefined between noninformative press conferences, then all of the two bit, tin pot dictators in the world will know that they are safe for at least the next 16 months, because we can't seem to kill the one in Libya, if that is our mission.

And what does this say about our word in the world? Qadaffi did what he is supposed to by coming forward and admitting his WMD programs and cooperating with the US during the last administration, and for that he was rewarded by having bombs dropped on him once per day, maybe. Kind of like teaching your dog to sit and then when he does it, you beat him for it. Any of you egghead diplo-dummies over at State want to explain to me how this perverted form of carrot/stick theory works?" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

CAA apparently lacks sufficient egg-headedness to tackle the writer's request. From my obviously under-informed and inexperienced perspective, this last seems like precisely the reverse of the message we should be sending to governments thinking about a little (or a lot) bit of nuclear proliferation, like, for instance, Iran.

The phrases "counter-intuitive" and "designed to fail" come to mind.

Of course, not being a Middle East-specialist, I can make assertions like "we're doing it exactly wrong" (and not be taken seriously).

"The debate over whether the WPA applies or doesn't apply or whether it passes constitutional muster is something that will continue to go on, but as I have talked about before, consistency is a habit of the successful and makes your leadership believable. If the president says he needs Congress to buy off on attacking Iran, then he better say the same damn thing about attacking anywhere else as well."

This is true only if consistency is valued by leaders. Consistency will be valued by leaders only if they are rewarded for it. If they are rewarded despite inconsistency, then the opposite outcome will result.

WT - EXCLUSIVE: U.S. seeks to protect Iran terror group. Iraqis urged to keep camp.

From my archive of press clippings:

Washington Times

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. seeks to protect Iran terror group. Iraqis urged to keep camp.

By Eli Lake (Contact) Tuesday, August 4, 2009

The United States is quietly pressing Iraq not to close a camp that holds more than 3,000 members of an Iranian opposition group that served as Saddam Hussein's shock troops in 1991 when he crushed rebellions after the Gulf War and now is vulnerable to Iraqi and Iranian reprisals.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Last week, Iraqi police stormed Camp Ashraf outside Baghdad, killing at least seven and injuring dozens during clashes with the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, or MEK. At the time, members of a U.S. unit known as Task Force 134, which deals with prisoners of war, were present outside the compound, said two U.S. officials -- one in Washington, one in Iraq -- who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue.

A day after the raid, officials at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad met with members of the Iraqi government to urge restraint. The next day, the U.S. Army helped medevac at least two dozen injured members of the MEK, the officials said."

"The U.S. has designated the MEK as a terrorist group for these actions and for the assassinations of six Americans in Iran before the 1979 Iranian revolution. But the U.S. nevertheless has sought to protect Camp Ashraf members -- who include women and children -- from Iraqi or Iranian attack and forced repatriation.

The camp had been under U.S. protection since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Iraq now seeks to reassert control under the provisions of the Status of Forces Agreement signed with Washington last year.
Iraqi media have reported that the government plans to close Camp Ashraf and disperse its residents to other locations in Iraq. Such a move could make the dissidents more vulnerable to Iranian intelligence and angry Iraqi Shi'ites who lost family members in 1991."

continued

"President Clinton designated the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization. However, in 2002, the group disclosed that Iran was building a secret nuclear facility south of Tehran. The MEK also claims to have provided valuable intelligence on the Iranian regime to the U.S. military and to no longer commit acts of terrorism. Over the years, the organization has touted itself as a viable opposition movement against Iran, even though it appears to have minimal support within Iran and there is a cult of personality around the group's leader, Maryam Rajavi.

Still, the group has cultivated allies in the U.S. Congress who have pressed the State Department to remove the MEK and affiliated groups from its list of foreign terrorists."

"Raymond Tanter, a member of the National Security Council in the Reagan administration who co-founded and is president of the Iran Policy Committee -- a Washington group that advocates lifting the MEK's terrorist designation -- said Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie told him that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government intends to destroy the camp, disperse its residents and send MEK leaders to Iran. "

&

"Rep. Howard L. Berman, California Democrat and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, the committee's ranking Republican, issued a statement last week expressing concern about the situation at Camp Ashraf.

"The Government of Iraq signed an agreement with the United States guaranteeing the physical security and protection of Ashraf residents following the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the area," the statement said. "The Iraqi government must live up to its commitment to ensure the continued well-being of those living in Ashraf and prevent their involuntary return to Iran.""