re: "The Muslim Brotherhood in America (Part IV) - Crossing the Bridge: The Implications of the Holy Land Foundation Trial (Part 1)"

John Guandolo at Big Peace explains some things which should be common knowledge.

Money quote(s):

"On a seemingly normal day on the outskirts of Annapolis, Maryland, a singular event led to the revelation of a deep-rooted enemy with a massive infrastructure inside the United States well on its way to achieving its goal of overthrowing the United States Constitution."

Sounds kinda melodramatic, don't it?

"Traveling on 50 West is a Baltimore County (MD) Marine Police unit carrying two officers. They are slowly overtaking a silver Infiniti sport utility vehicle when they notice the passenger is fully covered in what they believe is traditional Islamic garb. Her attire is not what gets their attention though – she is filming the support structures of the Bridge with a video camera. As they come alongside the vehicle she pulls the camera down, and resumes the filming when the police have passed. The officers catch that move. They notify the Maryland Transportation Authority (MTA) who has jurisdiction of the bridge. The officers conduct a vehicle stop at just about the time the MTA unit arrives on scene."

The view from the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, on a clear day, is rather nice; but the bridge's support structures aren't all that telegenic even on such a day.

"The way this was handled was a fair reaction from law enforcement officers when we understand the driver of the vehicle was identified as Ismail Elbarasse – a Hamas operative (and, therefore, a Muslim Brother), wanted on a Material Witness warrant in a Hamas case out of Chicago. As more officers and the FBI are notified, the cops on scene realize there is something big going on. Why is a Hamas guy filming the support structures of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge? Investigators will later suggest that because of Al Qaeda’s reduced ability to operate in the U.S. after 9/11, it was using other groups, like Hamas, to conduct pre-operational surveillance of its targets. What is most historically earth-shattering is what follows the car stop.

The FBI executes a search warrant of Elbarasse’s home and vehicle in Annandale, Virginia. In the basement of the residence is a sub-basement. In the sub-basement, the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood are discovered. Historical documents, financial documents, strategic documents, organizational documents, and all kinds of other items are found among this incredible discovery.

Many of these documents will be entered into evidence at the largest successfully prosecuted terrorism financing and Hamas trial in U.S. history – US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (or “HLF” for short). These documents were stipulated to by the defense counsel, meaning there is no legal basis to contest their validity as being what they purport to be." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Mr. Guandolo then summarizes ten key facts established by these documents, facts you might not know, or perhaps disbelieve.

"1. Holy Land Foundation was the largest Islamic non-profit in the United States and it was a Hamas entity.

2. The leaders of HLF were senior Hamas leaders.

3. Hamas was created out of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood.

4. There is a significant Muslim Brotherhood Movement in the United States which began in the 1950’s.

5. The first national Islamic organization, the Muslim Students Association, was created by the Muslim Brotherhood.

6. The MB seeks to subordinate existing U.S. law to Shariah (Islamic Law) and re-establish the global Islamic State (Caliphate).

7. The most prominent Islamic organizations in North America are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement to include, but not limited to: Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), Muslim Students Association (MSA), International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) which was demonstrated to be a Hamas entity in the United States.

8. ISNA and NAIT are Hamas support entities.

9. ICNA is partnered with the Muslim American Society (MAS), and their training program to Muslims across North America includes the call to “wage war” against all systems of government not under Islamic rule, and calls Muslims to “hate and despise” all un-Islamic governments, among other things.

10. “Islamic Societies” and “Islamic Centers” across North America are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, meaning along with the mosques, non-profit organizations, lobbying groups, for-profit businesses, and the covert organizations controlled by the MB, the Muslim Brotherhood has thousands of entities in the U.S. at all levels of society working daily to bring Islamic law and Islamic rule to the United States." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Now, you may choose to disbelieve, but remember the provenance of this information. In my academic research (and that paper garnered an "A," by the way*). I've had occasion to read some of the documents which were entered into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial. They're acessable on the internet without a great deal of searching.

"What is most disturbing from this factual information is that federal agencies charged with the security of the United States, as well as state and local law enforcement organizations, have primarily worked with ISNA, CAIR, MSA, MAS or other hostile organization over the years – and continue to do so today. This creates a significant legal and practical danger to American citizens when the very agencies sworn to “protect and defend” are taking their advice from an enemy – the Muslim Brotherhood / Hamas / Al Qaeda – who has made their violent objectives crystal clear to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear."

This is one of the reasons I find it hard to take a lot of our "homeland security" efforts very seriously.

Be sure to read the final paragraph.

_____
* In the course of some of my academic work, I made it a point of putting the academic integrity of my instructors to the test, by submitting well written, assiduously documented, and painstakingly reasoned research papers leading to quite politically incorrect conclusions.

To their credit, not a single professor ever downchecked me on the basis of their personal leanings. I was very impressed.

re: "Why the Libyan War is important to us - and to our children"

Fabius Maximus ("A discussion of geopolitics – broadly defined as economics, government, sociology and the military arts – from an American’s perspective.") puts our intervention in Libya and the War Powers Act into mutual perspective.

Money quote(s):

"Summary: The Libyan War will have long-term consequences, no matter who eventually rules Libya. It’s another precedent. Another step away from the Second Republic (1788-) towards a new political regime. One with a far stronger Executive than the Founders wanted. One as strong as they feared."

This is not an uncommon viewpoint on the right side of the political spectrum.

"The Libyan War does not meet the requirements for Presidential authorization of military action. The relevant clauses are both brief and clear."

"US Code Title 50, Chapter 33: The War Powers Resolution, § 1541. Purpose and policy Section C: Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
1. a declaration of war,
2. specific statutory authorization, or
3. a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

No president, since the War Powers Act was first passed, has conceded that it actually binds them, but all have been punctilious about not violating it and complying with it, even if only as a courtesy.

"A cure will come only when we as a people decide to return to a Constitutional form of government. That would mean no public support for these discretionary wars, and the senior military leadership coming to a different understanding of how to balance their duties to obey the Commander-in-Chief and defend the Constitution.

The latter is an important and seldom mentioned point. I fear we’re slowly moving to a time where the two duties of our most senior officers will conflict, radically and unmistakably. Perhaps not in our time, but likely in our children’s time"

Accepting congressional resolutions authorizing the use of force, as was done for Afghanistan and Iraq, as constituting declarations of war is reasonable enough; it's not like the Constitution established any sort of format for this kind of document. It's up to Congress to make that sort of rule for itself, or not. It's once you start subcontracting that element of sovereignty outwith the federal system, to UN or NATO or other organs, that Constitutionalists get.... twitchy.

"The primary precedent expanding Presidential war powers; “The Korean War: On What Legal Basis Did Truman Act?“, Louis Fisher (Congressional Research Service), American Journal of International Law, January 1995 – American history might have taken a different course if our senior generals had gently requested that Truman first get Presidential approval. If they had only taken their oath more seriously."

_____

Hat tip to Tigerhawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations").

re: "My Plan on How to Fight the Next Middle East War"

Frank J. Fleming at PajamasMedia ("exclusive news and opinion 24/7 with correspondents in over forty countries") is thinking about Grand Strategy.

Money quote(s):

"War is hell … if you’re in the war. For everyone else, it’s the whining that gets to us. The constant calls of “quagmire” and how everyone is dying for nothing and that we’re only making things worse and how we’re wasting money (yeah, the left used to pretend to care about that) really wear on us. I don’t know how our troops are doing with all the deployments, but all the civilians seem worn out from only hearing about war. We’re all war weary — despite most of us not being directly affected by any of the combat. Maybe our troops can handle getting shot at and going on multiple deployments just fine, but we can’t deal with the civilians complaining about it all the time."

Remember this?

"Obviously avoiding wars in the Middle East is not a realistic option, and I’m sure we’ll get involved in plenty more in the future. So how can we do that and avoid the constant whining of dumb hippies and having all those useless countries in Europe call us warmongers? Well, think back to the Iraq War and when people really started to viciously complain about it. We had broad support going in, and people were still pretty up on it during the initial bombing campaign and even once we got to the point of pulling down the Saddam statue. People truly started getting angry, and the “Bush=Hitler” signs came out in full force, when we stayed and tried to help.

Bombing a country is nothing, but hanging around the country afterward, helping it rebuild and establish a system of government where the citizens don’t get bossed around by a homicidal dictator, gets us into trouble. And it is pretty difficult for the troops; it requires them to stand out there exposed among the populace instead of just running around in tanks and exploding stuff. Plus it takes a long time, during which there will be constant whining about it, especially if there are Republicans in office to blame. The left basically collaborated with the insurgents in Iraq, saying, “Hey, if you kill more troops, then we will scream even louder about how awful this war is and hopefully get Bush out of office. So help us out here!”"

You have to love Frank J. He has a plain-spoken way of saying what he thinks and making it accessible.

"So I ask: Why should we even stay and help a country after we’ve bombed it?

Think about it. When President Bush gave that famous speech on the aircraft carrier in front of the “Mission Accomplished” banner, we could have just left the war then and said we won, and who could have argued with us? If you can go to a country, blow stuff up, and leave unscathed, that sounds like success. If someone came and burned your house and walked away, you wouldn’t say you won because the guy left. So why shouldn’t we in a future conflict in a Middle Eastern country just blow up stuff, declare victory, and leave?"

This is what's called a punitive expedition or war. Because its purpose is to punish. And that's it.

____

Hat tip to Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.").

re: "Islam, Is It like the others?"

DiploMad at The DiploMad 2.0 ("Wracked with angst over the fate of our beloved Republic, now in the hands of Morons who (mis)govern it, the DiploMad has returned to do battle on the world wide web, swearing death to political correctness, and pulling no punches.") takes us around the bases on the subject of Islam (for those who haven't been paying attention since 2001) (or 1998) (or 1993).

Money quote(s):

"We, however, must ask, is our commitment to freedom, to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights a suicide pact? What do we do when faced with powerful organizations here at home that don't believe in freedom? Organizations motivated by hatred precisely for those freedoms and the practice of tolerance? Organizations that openly seek to use our freedoms to destroy them?

During the Cold War we faced such a foe, Soviet Communism. We adopted common sense measures at home to limit the ability of Communists to undermine our nation. Communists, for example, could not hold certain sensitive jobs; they were denied security clearances; the CPUSA was treated as the agent of a hostile foreign power and was subject to penetration and surveillance by the FBI. Foreign Communists were ineligible for visas to the US or for citizenship. Did we infringe on the freedom of Communists? Yes, no doubt. Given, however, what we all should now know about the extent of Soviet espionage against the USA, and the role that the CPUSA played in efforts to undermine America, those measures seem eminently reasonable. We have had similar restrictions on Fascists, Nazis, and KKK members. All infringements, all justifiable."

This is one of those historically proven facts, well known in literate circles, that tends to cause cognitive dissonance among those indoctrinated to see no enemies on the Left, to believe Sen. McCarthy was a wrong-headed monster, to believe Alger Hiss (and the Rosenbergs) were innocent.

All of which was proven, again and again, to be counterfactual; i.e., lies and untruths.

Google "venona papers" or "mitrokhin archive" if these assertions trouble you.

"Those of us who have served in Muslim states know that when we go to those countries we must respect their culture -- OK, fine. But it turns out that when they come to our country, we also have to respect their culture -- or at least the Disney version they peddle. As I have said on many occasions, try to build a church or a synagogue in Saudi Arabia, not possible; try to prevent Muslims from building a mosque in your home town, not possible. We all, especially those of us in government, have to recite the mantra of "Islam is a religion of tolerance and peace.""

A long time ago, before becoming a diplomat, I had a very interesting interview with an officer and a gentleman whose task that day was to evaluate me for "a position of trust and responsibility with the U.S. Government." Actually, it wasn't anything to do with my security clearance (for those of you who recognize the phrasing) but everything to do with whether I was fit or suitable to lie, cheat, and steal for my country.

(As some of our special operators will tell you, "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'.)

To shorten an overlong story, I was able to convince the gentleman that, despite my Eagle Scout background, I was willing to do what was necessary on behalf of my country, to do very un-nice things to un-nice people.

Fast forwarding, I recently found myself getting into a semi-public debate about whether American diplomats should tell lies. One party (who was not a diplomat) assumed I was accusing a fellow diplomat, who was our mutual acquaintance, of being a liar. Au contraire.

The mutual acquaintance, a senior FSO for whom I have boundless admiration, is someone in whose word I would place great confidence. On the other hand, I also understand the truth in the saying "A diplomat is an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country."

Pres. Bush (#43) understood (even if he never articulated it particularly well), that getting into an existential struggle with a world civilization a la Huntington, wasn't a particularly good idea.

It's still not a very good idea, but it may be one which we are unable to finally avoid.

So I'm not all that troubled by having to say the mantra. (I'm more troubled by people who know me thinking I'm stupid enough to believe it.)

"We are at war with a totalitarianism as much as we were with Communism and Fascism. It's going to be a long, long war, one in which we have to inflict repeated defeats on the Islamists"

"The Soviet Empire in practice was a social, economic and human disaster by just about any measure you care to use. Islam, likewise, as it is practiced in the modern world has produced some of the most retrograde, repressive, and violent regimes and organizations in existence. Nearly all Muslims might not be terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims. And they draw their inspiration from somewhere." (Bold type added for emphasis, primarily because this can't be said too often. - CAA)

&

"Bottom line: Do we have the right and obligation to defend ourselves against a brutal and totalitarian ideology, or do we have to put up with it because it has the label "religion?""

re: "Must Read"

Emperor Misha at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler ("HQ of the Rottweiler Empire. An Affiliate of the VRWC.") offers a creed for warriors.

Money quote(s):

"Undying loyalty to our friends, eternal and uncompromising ruthlessness to our enemies.

We cannot conquer hatred or envy, but we can control it through fear. Let them hate us, if they must, because they do not need to as it is their choice, as long as they fear us. When forced into defense, attack. Let all and sundry know that to oppose us is to die, that we shall never forgive nor forget, and that all we ask in return for the gift of us not destroying them is for them to leave us alone.

Never give in, never yield, and always remember that it is better to die after a day of fighting for liberty than it is to live a hundred years licking the boots of your conquerors.

We all suffer one death. May G-d and our own actions grant that it be a good one."

re: "Ending America: The Slaughter of Free Speech, Congress to "explore the need to limit some forms of freedom of speech" "

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs ("Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction.") takes her (and your) freedom of speech seriously.

Money quote(s):

"The very idea that our legislators would restrict free speech and impose the sharia (blasphemy laws) as a response to inhuman barbarity is an act of sedition and treason. When did we ever shred America's golden, historic principles in submission to bloody savage totalitarianism? If America really understood what was happening here and was not psy-oped by an enemedia, they would take to the streets with pitchforks and torches."

Whoa. She had me at pitchforks and torches.

(Everyone always forgets the hayrakes.)

"The idea that this will threaten American troops is just another terror tactic. This is based on the assumption that they are fighting us because we are doing things they don't like. Actually they are fighting us because of imperatives within the Islamic faith. They will never like us unless we convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule. If we stop doing things they dislike, where will we draw the line? How far will Sharia advance in the U.S., with Americans afraid to stop its advance for fear of offending Muslims and stirring them up to violence? This is incompatible with American freedom. We have to draw the line."

It helps if one takes into account what ones enemies claim they are doing, and why. Attributing some other set of motives (poverty, anti-colonialism, environmentalism) based upon ivory tower precepts generated in Western think tanks betrays some serious mirror-imaging cognitive bias.

"Limiting free speech won't stop the jihadis from killing people. It will have just the opposite effect, but serve as reinforcement of their murderous actions. More people will die. Many more." (Bold type in original. - CAA)

re: "The Strange Case Of Pastor Terry Jones: A Sunday Screed"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road rejects the "Religion of Peace" construct. Emphatically.

Money quote(s):

"Were we ever to rid ourselves of the notion that Islam is "a religion of peace," we'd fall upon the Middle East, North Africa, Sudan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Muslim enclaves in Europe, and every other Islamic hellhole in a body. We'd purge that noxious creed from the world out of righteous wrath and humanitarian concern for all decent persons who want only to live in peace. Anyone who would dare to suggest that we'd be wrong to do so would earn our undying contempt."

I've got to say, as un-fond as I am of, the counterfactual ROP mantra, it's always seemed to me that Prof. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations theory was as much a warning as a paradigm. And that Pres. Bush (43) was correct in not making the GWOT into an intercivilizational war.

"There is absolutely no possibility of "reforming" Islam. Islam is founded on violence. It's made all its gains in the world through violence and intimidation."

And behavior which is rewarded will be repeated. Got that part.

re: "Where the push for ground troops may come from ... "

CDR Salamander at Cdr Salamander ("Proactively “From the Sea”; leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.") correctly opposes mission creep in Libya.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hat if, as things are trending, the rebel forces simply cannot dislodge Kadafi and his sons from power? With no one left to save and unlikely to destroy Bengazi in order to save it - a lot of nations are left having attacked a nation with nothing to show for it to the world or their citizens.

Somewhere between a full collapse of the rebellion and a last stand - someone will point out what has been invested at this point and the danger of a Qadaffi family's survival and the shaming of all the coalition nations. All that good advice about, "If you are set on regicide, you must succeed." and "If you set out to take Vienna; take Vienna." will come to the front along with a healthy bit of, "You won't get a second chance."

Everyone will look to the USA. I think SECDEF Gates is not bluffing - and I don't think the CINC will put troops ashore.

The rest of the Coalition therefor will not do it - because they cannot do it militarily without the USA - and politically with their population."

It's always nice to have Big Sam to rely, and blame, upon.

"(W)e are in this - I support 100% all efforts to win this ... to a point. We do not need another occupation by USA forces of a Muslim nation.If the rebellion continues to collapse, the push will come for ground troops ... and will pass. Uncle Sam will shrug - and I will support the President 100% saying "No."

I will fault him for getting involved in this folly to begin with - but will support his and SECDEF Gates's wise decision to let this opportunity for imperial humanitarianism pass.
Will it be a complete POL/MIL mess with second and third order effects that will be exceptionally distasteful? Yes. That is why you don't do things like this."

Once you go "kinetic," there no taking it back. If Qhadafy survives in power, even in a rump state, he will exact revenge. It's how he rolls.

re: "UN's Compound In Mazar-i-Sharif Was Not Well Protected "

TSB at The Skeptical Bureaucrat ("Giving my fellow Americans the view from my cubicle") gives a professional evaluation of the site security at the scene of this massacre.

Money quote(s)

"(T)he UN Mission relied on the presence of local police and their own (third country national) armed guards to deter mobs. They evidently did not put up the kinds of physical barriers - high perimeter walls and gates, entry control facilities, protected guard booths and police fighting position, etc., - that would have delayed and channeled the mob, and made it more feasible for the armed presence to prevent anyone from entering.

Without that element of physical delay, guards and police can't be fully effective."

"Inside the UN compound, the headquarters building likewise lacked physical security relevant to a mob attack."

"While most people will assume that any wall, door, or window that was built to resist bomb blast will also resist small arms fire and forced entry, that is not at all the case. In order to protect people against a prolonged mob attack that uses small arms and improvised hand tools ("hammers or whatever they could find") you need products that were specifically designed for that purpose, like the ones that U.S. embassies use.

FYI, for a detailed description of how those embassy products are tested, and I do mean detailed, see this article in an old issue of a construction trade journal."

&

"(T)he international community might want to take a lesson from our Fortress Embassies"

This last might be more difficult than you'd think, since it would require a mental shift from the "we're the UN, everyone loves us" to "some of our ungrateful public may try to kill us" mindset.

Also, there's a reason for all those security features we saddle ourselves with, they're really not there just to employ hardware manufacturers in favored congressional districts.

re: "A little bit about the Foreign Service, Vietnam, et cetera. "

The Warpiper ("Tooting My Own Horn") has an excellent description of what it's like to be a first-tour consular officer.

Money quote(s):

"(O)ne of the realities of the Foreign Service that maybe a prospective FSO will find useful. Foreign Service work is busy. Everybody likes to claim that their particular occupation is either challenging, frenetic, or both. However, I can say that I am much busier on any given day in my current occupation than I EVER was as a street copper. The precinct where I spent a large chunk of my time over my 17 year career at the PD was no sleeper, either. Police work is 98% boredom and 2% sheer terror. Foreign Service work is constantly in motion. I have not yet found the time in my schedule to be bored.

That being said, if you are considering trying your hand at a career in the FS, let me give a little advice based on my thus far limited experience. This is a very rewarding career and you will accomplish much. You will be stretched to your limits in terms of the responsibilities you will be handed. I have yet to meet a FSO without enough to do. You will feel, at times, that there isn't enough time in the day to properly address all your duties, and you will be correct in that feeling."

Just so.

re: "Saturday"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog *") explains something about the correlation of forces in Libya.

Money quote(s):

“We used to understand that mob cannot stand up to regulars. Militia barely can and usually cannot. The wording of the Second Amendment is not accidental.”

re: "Sunday Reflection: From 'just-in-time' to 'just-in-case?' "

Glenn Harlan Reynolds of Instapundit ("the intersection between advanced technologies and individual liberty") gives us a new management principle in a Washington Examiner article.

re: "Culturally Sensitive Female Soldiers"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") provides his own unique perspective on cultural sensitivity.

Money quote(s):

"We’re now talking about women in combat, and if we’re sending women overseas in that role we should only be emphasizing how superior they are to all around them and how they can easily kill anyone. They can’t be getting orders like, “So take down all the hostiles… unless one of them asks you to make him a sammich, because they expect women to do that in their culture.” Some cultures have idiotic beliefs, and we have to be a little less sensitive and more willing to call them out on that. When we go into a country, we should make a nice list of what about their culture is idiotic and what we won’t respect, just so everyone is clear.

Plus, why is it on our female soldiers to be sensitive? The one with the assault rifle — now that’s who people need to worry about being sensitive to." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA)

re: "Our barbarian allies kill UN workers in Kabul"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") says no to submission.

Money quote(s):

"There are those who believe that their religion supersedes all earthly existence. They are willing to kill you if you simply disagree with them, and they claim the right to be free from offense by everyone else on the planet. They are not a simple minority hiding on the fringes of Muslim society. They are running the mosques, they are indoctrinating their flock, they are inculcating hatred, racism, xenophobia and they are directly inciting murderous violence.

Their demand is simple.......Submit. We can either do so, or we need to resist. I reject the right of anyone to claim they can choose to limit my freedoms based on their personal religious beliefs."

re: "The Greatest U.S. Army Jokes Ever"

Andrew Exum at Abu Muqawama exhibits some rather dark humor with his list.

re: "U.S.-Pakistan Relations in Decline"

Daniel Pipes at DanielPipes.Org ("a fast way to comment on many topics") makes some foreign policy suggestions.

Money quote(s):

"(H)ere is a realistic policy recommendation that serves American interests:

Give up on the pretence that the two governments are allies and treat Pakistan – with its many madrassahs, its Islamist military leadership, and rogue intelligence service – as a danger zone. Adopt a policy of containment vis-à-vis the Islamism coming out of it, rewarding cooperation and punishing hostile acts. This approach permits Washington flexibly to collaborate or confront as circumstances warrant and needs change."

The most obvious and immediate drawback for this approach is that Pakistan comprises the main supply routes (MSR) for our military forces in Afghanistan.

This is not so say we can't or shouldn't do this, but that there are consequences to doing so and preparation would be essential for managing them.

re: "Disadvantages of an Elite Education"

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") contributes some thoughts to a discussion on elitist institutions.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hile the Ivies and their elite cousins confer many advantages on their graduates, they also wall them off from normal people and create an entitled, out-of-touch elite. As a product of decidedly non-elite institutions working to put my daughters on an elite path, much of it rings true."

"The closest thing in my personal experience to the “you are special” indoctrination is the year and a half I spent at West Point. While admission was largely meritocratic and more economically diverse that our brethren at the Ivies, the notion that we were an elite vanguard was inculcated in us from the earliest days. (Rather odd in hindsight, since they also spend the first year doing their best to make cadets feel inadequate.) Not only were we a cut above our civilian college brethren but the Army and the country were depending on us to guard its virtue. While academy graduates were a small part of the officer corps, we would be like a drop of ink in a barrel of water, changing the character of the whole Army.

Even though I nearly drowned in that environment and wound up finishing at a podunk regional school for financial reasons, it took me a couple of years to fully shake off the notion that, simply having been selected to go to West Point, that I was special. So, I can certainly see how someone who spends years in that sort of environment–and years in select schools competing to get there–would have an enormous sense of entitlement."

Sadly, in my many years in and around State Dept., I've seen many examples of the entitlement syndrome. Back before I joined the Foreign Service, I was even known to theorize that the "A" in "A-100" (the traditional but unofficial* designation of the Foreign Service Officer Orientation course, which as an actual course number completely different from that) stood for "arrogance." As in it was the capability being taught in that course.

That's not actually the case, but we do get quite a few "special snowflakes" joining the service and they can have some adjusting to do as they proceed abroad to some very non-elite assignments as junior officers.

Selection into the Foreign Service is almost completely meritocratic. Plenty of us come from non-elite backgrounds. And the only reason I say "almost" is because of the Qualifications Evaluation Panel phase which is now part of the FSO accession/selection process. It was implemented some years after I was hired and I find it just a little bit opaque, something of a "black box" in the process.

Personally, I've had the privilege of being part of several "elite" groups in my professional life over the years, culminating most recently in my career as an FSO and in some of my assignments therein.

(Oh, and attending an "elite" educational institution was not one of them until fairly late in life)

What those experiences taught me was that, as smart as I think I am or believe myself to be, there are folks even smarter than that and it's never a good idea to think you're either the smartest guy in the room or that you already know everything there is to know about something or that you can't learn something from people who might not be as smart as you are.

"(W)ell-connected graduates of elite schools often get on the fast track right from the outset. There are people working at the White House, Congressional staff, and the Joint Chiefs with less subject matter expertise and real world experience than I had fifteen years ago. There’s simply a huge degree of path determinacy at work."

In D.C., in certain "social circles," one encounters the youngest versions of these folks, the "Hill rats." As in "Capitol Hill." More than one FSO has come away from encounters with these, and some of their more senior brethren, convinced that many bear a serious chip on their shoulders about the Foreign Service, a grudge dating back to when they were unable to either pass the FS examinations or otherwise make it through the selection and appointment process. None of us could prove it, but the impression has come across to many different FSOs around the world at various times.

(I should mention, just to be clear, that I've also had tremendously positive professional encounterss with various Hill and Executive Branch staffers. They tended to be the ones experienced enough to know what the Foreign Service does and what FSOs can do for them assisting the completion of their own responsibilities.)

"Moreover, the degree is always a trump card. I’m well past the point where anyone cares where my undergraduate degree is from. Unless I’m applying for an academic job, it’s at the bottom of my resume. But people who went to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Berkeley, and the like are still getting credit for it decades later."

He concludes:

"It’s very easy for those in the professional class to live in a bubble of their own creation and, especially, to put one around our kids. And, frankly, the incentives to do so are powerful. There has to be a balance between making providing opportunities for your kids and walling them off from reality."

re: "The massacre at Camp Ashraf"

Melanie Phillips at The Spectator ("don't think alike") brings disturbing word from Iraq, that you won't get from the "news" media.

Money quote(s):

"(W)e must not overlook the massacre that took place earlier this month of members of the Iranian opposition group, the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI), at their base in Ashraf in Iraq.

Despite the fact that the PMOI are ‘protected persons’ under the 4th Geneva Convention, on April 8 they were the victims of an unprovoked attack which was apparently carried out on the orders of the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki. The unarmed civilian residents of Ashraf were fired at with machine-gun rounds, as a result of which 35 of them were killed and some 350 injured.

According to the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the Iraqi Army used 2,500 troops equipped with armoured vehicles to attack Ashraf in tandem with the feared al Qods force of Iran." Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA.

The PMOI (a.k.a., MEK) are the military wing of the NCRI. Or perhaps the NCRI is the political wing of the PMOI/MEK. Experts disagree.

But the bottom line is that the PMOI members interned at Camp Ashraf are protected persons, declared to be by our own military commanders in Iraq, under the Geneva Protocols.

"(T)here are strong fears that the Iraqis are preparing to inflict further violence on the residents of Ashraf -- and no less disturbing, claims that both the Iraqis and the Americans have been either actively preventing or doing nothing to provide medical aid for those injured in the attack." Embedded link added. - CAA.

&

"(T)he last thing the British and Americans want to acknowledge is that the Iraqi government of Nuri al Maliki – the country in which so much British and American blood and treasure has been so painfully spent in the cause of making it safe for the west -- has merely become (as has been suggested on this blog many times) a puppet of the Iranians, the west’s most lethal foe"

Does no one else recall the shame of Operation Keelhaul? I fear we will see even worse this time around.

re: "Need budget cuts? We probably can start by shutting the Air War College"

Thomas E. Ricks at The Best Defense ("Tom Rick's Daily Take on National Security") reviews some criticism of the Air War College.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he place is an expensive joke. Funny except that the taxpayer picks up the tab."

Happily, this does not jibe at all with my experiences regarding DoD's higher learning institutions, such as the other various war colleges and universities. Some of the issues raised by Hughes are certainly potential pitfalls for any institution of this type; the sponsoring organization has to value the institution (or, more importantly, its product) enough to send its best and brightest to be students and its very best and brightest to teach there. The way organizations send the message that an institution is important is by promoting those who excel there.

"Tom's bottom line: Hughes says it costs at least $300,000 a year to send an officer to the AWC. So this looks like a good place to begin budget cuts, Secretary Gates. Close the place and send the students out into the world of civilian academia, where they will be challenged intellectually and might learn something."

Pretty big black eye for the Air Force if it muffs running its own war college. Professional military education is an investment in a service's future top leaders, not a block to be checked off, particularly if that education is known by the other service's top leaders to be a joke.

re: "Another Day, Another Muslim Massacre"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ recounts his evolving perspective.

Money quote(s):

"After 9/11 I was pretty sure what I wanted to see was Option 2. When Bush took nukes off the table, I was disappointed.

I did then, and still do, criticize Bush for being a Born-Again Christian. By which I mean: informed by the Christian ethics of mercy and regard for human life.

Which I thought were nice and everything but... too constraining.

After 9/11, I had a much less Christian sort of thought about how to deal with a murder cult.

Bush sort of changed my mind, and pursued, I thought, what seemed to be a less savage, more noble course. I gave him credit for that. Maybe I (and people who thought like me) were in fact giving license to genocidal hatred. Maybe Bush's decision to keep things civilized was a good one.

I was proud of what Bush, and the troops fighting for America, did for me, and for all of us. It wasn't just that they delivered justice -- justice could be more cheaply delivered via massive bombs dropped on cities and towns. They also delivered something finer than justice. Compassion, mercy.

I wouldn't have chosen that course -- but I was glad that cooler (or, warmer) heads chose it for me.

But as this goes on I am going back to thinking those are expensive luxuries and I no longer wish to pay for such things."

re: "The Attack on Libya Crossed a Very Bright Constitutional Line"

Rep. Tom McClintock (R–CA) at Big Government laid out the Constitutional facts.


Money quote(s):

"When the President ordered the attack on Libya without Congressional authorization, he crossed a very bright Constitutional line that he himself recognized in 2007 when he told the Boston Globe “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” "

&

"To contend that the President has the legal authority to commit an act of war without Congressional approval requires ignoring every word the Constitution’s authors said on this subject – and they said quite a lot.

There seems to be a widespread misconception that under the War Powers Act, the President may order any attack on any country he wants for 60 days without Congressional approval. This is completely false. The War Powers Act is clear and unambiguous: the President may only order our armed forces into hostilities under three very specific conditions: (quoting directly from the Act): “(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Only if one of these conditions is present can the President invoke the War Powers Act. None are present or alleged to be present, and thus the President is in direct violation of that Act.
The United Nations Participation Act requires specific congressional authorization before American forces are ordered into hostilities in United Nations actions. The North Atlantic Treaty clearly requires troops under NATO command to be deployed in accordance with their country’s constitutional provisions. The War Powers Act specifically forbids inferring from any treaty the power to order American forces into hostilities without specific congressional authorization.

The only conclusion we can make is that this was an illegal and unconstitutional act of the highest significance."

re: "Random Bits"

Andrew Exum at Abu Muqawama ("dedicated to following issues related to contemporary insurgencies as well as counterinsurgency tactics and strategy") has his head screwed the right way on and his priorities in order.

Money quote(s):

"I was not too angry about the fact that the United States is conducting clandestine operations in Libya. Frankly, I support liaising with the rebels (though not arming them), and I also support observing air strikes. Air strikes are generally more effective at doing what you want them to do -- and not doing what you do not want them to do, like kill civilians -- when they are observed. What makes me mad is the inability of officials to understand that clandestine operations are no longer clandestine after you blab about them to Mark Mazetti and Eric Schmitt. Now, if officials in the administration leaked this information as part of a carefully planned, tightly coordinated information operation designed to hasten Gadhafi's departure from Libya, I take back all my criticism and indeed salute the administration. If, by contrast, this information was leaked because of domestic political pressure and in response to complaints the administration was not doing enough to support the rebels, then I know of a circle of hell Dante forgot in which the leakers will someday find themselves residing. These kinds of leaks -- which involve disclosing the presence and activities of men in harm's way -- are the kind that make me want to run around Washington, DC kicking "officials" in their sensitive parts."

re: "The Entangling Alliance"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog *") has some thoughts on NATO.

Money quote(s):

"We have transferred operational control of the Libya operation from a USAF general to a USN admiral, but the admiral is head of NATO. Presumably there is a logic to this, but I confess I don't understand it; but then I don't understand the necessity for the US to be in NATO in the first place. NATO is an entangling alliance. The warning against entangling alliances is usually attributed to George Washington, but we actually inherited it from Thomas Jefferson: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." It is of a piece with Washington's warnings. The purpose of NATO originally was to keep the Russians from taking West Germany and going to the Rhine. NATO was formed by Truman during the early days of the Cold War when governments in Europe were falling to Communist coups and the Iron Curtain was descending. It became a military alliance with a formal structure as a result of the Korean War. In those days, NATO was a mutual security organization: an attack on one member was an attack on all of them.

When the Berlin Wall came down NATO no longer had a purpose, but the Iron Law of Bureaucracy took over and NATO actually expanded"

&

"(O)f course the expanded NATO must have more missions: it needs to justify its existence.

In fact it has no reason for existence. NATO is an expensive luxury we cannot afford."

re: "Tartan Day - The Declaration of Arbroath"

It's that time again.

re: "Barack Obama’s Imperial Presidency"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") has a better understanding of the war powers issues than most.

Money quote(s):

"I suppose it is smart for a Member of Congress to avoid getting too involved in foreign policy matters because the possibility of being wrong is so much greater. However, that doesn’t make the abdication of responsibility proper. Largely though its own lack of willingness to act over the years, Congress has ceded vast discretion to the President when it comes to committing American military forces to overseas conflicts that don’t directly threaten the national interests of the United States."

"(E)very President since Richard Nixon has taken the position that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional because is infringes on the President’s powers as Commander in Chief. Obama is merely adopting the position of his predecessors, and while it may seem odd that a President who ran against the Iraq War to be acting like this, it is not at all surprising. Once they have been asserted, Executive Branch privileges are seldom curtailed" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA)

The bolded portion is a key bit of history that seems to be evading many commenters on this but forms an essential component of what I was originally taught about the War Powers Act. Every president complies with the Act's requirements, but does so while saying he doesn't have to.

"As for what will happen with regard to Libya, I think that’s pretty easy to figure out. Congress will do nothing. With American forces committed abroad, and the increasing possibility that ground troops may be necessary at some point, no Congress is going to step in and tel the President he can’t do this, no matter how much they believe that to be the case."

He may be right about this, but I think this will break differently should there be any U.S. casualties.

re: "Libya: Military Science 101 at work"

McQ at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") shows how the enemy gets a vote in how the best-laid plans go aft agley. (We're not the only ones with a learning curve, after all.)

Money quote(s):

"I noted the other day to someone that once Gadhafi’s forces figured out how to adapt to the coalition presence and tactics, they’d probably begin to swing the momentum back to their side. Why? Because they’re better trained and equipped than the “rebels”. "

The Libyan rebels are, almost by definition, a "rag tag band." In other words, they're a "pick-up" team. No hard winter at Valley Forge drilling under Von Steuben for them. To their detriment.

"Think about it - what is the hardest thing to distinguish? Whether or not a civilian vehicle is occupied by good guys or bad guys – or neither. Make your side pretty much identical from the air to the other side or just regular civilians and it makes the job the coalition has undertaken much harder. That’s precisely what the Gadhafi troops have done."

The enemy gets a vote in how your plan (assuming you have a plan developed somewhat beyond the "Underpants Gnome" stage) and will be doing whatever they can manage to foul up and interfere with its successful implementation.

That why the call them "the enemy."

"I hear a lot of talk about the US (or others) arming the rebels and how that will make the difference. Nonsense. While not having the weaponry that the other side has is indeed a disadvantage, it isn’t the rebel alliance’s biggest problem. Their biggest problem is they’re an untrained and undisciplined rabble. And an untrained and undisciplined rabble confronting even marginally trained troops with at least a modicum of discipline are going to lose if all else is equal."

In political terms, this is why the odds favor the Muslim Brotherhood coming out on top of the tweeters and Facebookers in Egypt: the Ilkwan are organized and prepared for violence, just like the Bolsheviks and Khomeini's "revolutionaries" were.

re: "The Obama Administration in Contempt of Congress on Libya and the Underpants Gnome Theory of War"

Aaron Worthing at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") is reading the plain English meaning of the War Powers Act.

Money quote(s):

"If you are going to argue that the President can do this under his inherent powers under the Constitution, that is fine. I will disagree with you, but you are within the realm of reasoned debate. But you can’t pretend that the War Powers Act covers this—you can argue that this power is inherent in the office of Commander-in-Chief, but you can’t honestly and competently claim that the War Powers Act covers this. This isn’t a foreign language. Hell, this isn’t even lawyer-code-talk. We were not in an emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories or its armed forces when Obama started bombing Libya. It is, simply put, a lie to say it lawful under this act."

As I've noted before, as over-lawyered as our military leadership structure has become, this has to have been staffed so that the various generals and admirals don't have legal exposure on this.

"(D)uring the Revolution our military force was pretty pitiful, too, but usually the underdog loses. That is why we call them the underdog, and why it is an inspiring movie cliché when they win. Because they usually don’t win. So we might end up blowing another hole in our deficit, with little to show for it.

Nice. I have supported the idea of intervening from the beginning. I think McCain was right to ask for intervention when he asked for it. But if in our dithering the rebels have dwindled down to a force that cannot win, then we have to fish or cut bait. We either do a full scale invasion—which I oppose—or we shouldn’t even bother.

But just having a no-fly zone (which apparently does include blowing up some tanks—huh?), is just half-assed."

This is called limited warfare. Which is kind of an elastic term, as it's defined more by what it's not (it's not unlimited warfare, in other words).

"I had been trying to put words to my concern about how this war has been run for days, and I think I finally found the best metaphor. It’s the Underpants Gnomes theory of warfare. Of course I explain the Underpants Gnome metaphor here, but this is Obama’s theory of how to win the war:

Step 1: Enforce a No-Fly Zone Step 2: ? Step 3: Regime Change!

So his second step is a question mark, because he is just hoping the Rebels do something to take down Qdaffy, but he has no idea what it would be, or apparently even if they are capable of doing it, with our help. I support regime change and so on, but I am against half-assing it.

Anyway, Congress has to put its foot down. At the very least he has to be censured. That should be step one. And if Obama continues to show this contempt of the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution, it would be impeachment time. And some would say it was overdue."

Congress doesn't seem to be having many problems with this thus far, aside from one or two Members raising the issue.

If U.S. involvement escalates (think "boots on the ground") or we start to take losses of men and materiel, and it could become katie-bar-the-door time in D.C.

re: "NATO: Hey, We'll Bomb The Rebels, Too"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ just keeps getting smarter all the time.

Money quote(s):

"If America wants to enter other states and declare a monopoly on sanctioned violence, well, that's a good way to keep outrages against civilians low, but comes at the cost of using American troops for every damn fight in the world.

If you're going to go a different way -- supporting indigenous fighters with air capabilities and intelligence -- you have to accept that there are going to be some vicious slaughters of civilians by "freedom fighters," but certainly you want as few such massacres as possible. What do you do? You can threaten an end to air cover and supply. But that doesn't thwart a slaughter in progress.

I'm not sure a threat to attack the rebels we're supporting is necessarily a bad thing. We need them to keep it clean. The temptation in any war, especially a civil one, is to get dirty and vicious as soon as possible and then keep topping yourself. Our troops don't do that (except for the occasional psychopaths who are then court martialed), but we don't want to have to insert our troops into every situation where we might want to flex some military might.

If we're going to fight in this limited fashion (and I think the old Cold War model of limited support is well worth revisiting), we do need to let our "freedom fighters" know that there are some things we just won't/can't countenance, and there's no way we can stay in a fight if our "freedom fighters" decide to unleash their inner Al Qaeda.

As for actually bombing them, though: I really can't think of a more preposterous situation than bombing both sides in a civil war.

Oh, and meanwhile, SecDef Gates said there won't be any ground troops in Libya as long as he's serving in his job. So, like, implicitly, he's threatening to walk."

&

"(O)f course, any time you have pilots in a war it means you're just one shoot-down away from a hostage situation."

re: "On Military Intervention, the National Interest and the American Left"

DiploMad at DiploMad 2.0 ("Wracked with angst over the fate of our beloved Republic, now in the hands of Morons who (mis)govern it, the DiploMad has returned to do battle on the world wide web, swearing death to political correctness, and pulling no punches.") explains why inconsequential military interventions have consequences.

Money quote(s):

"(O)nce the United States, the world's preeminent military power, intervenes in a military crisis, even if there were no U.S. interests before that intervention, U. S. national interests get created by the intervention. Yes, once we intervene, committing our people, treasure, and prestige, we have a national interest in obtaining success. We now have to win, and the other side has to lose, or our enemies around the world will be emboldened to act against us."

To put it less professionally (or rather in the terms of a different set of professions), once you've got skin in the game, you've got skin in the game.

Vonclaustrophobia

Karlchen (“Little Carl”) Von Claustrowitz warned large states from undertaking adventurism in small states, inspiring the term “Vonclaustrophobia” (an irrational fear or aversion to military involvement in small or limited wars).

Described small wars as “the continuation of inter-office politics and bureaucratic in-fighting by violent means.”

Also coined under-appreciated terms like “the drizzle of war,” “abrasion” or "chafing" (which takes Friktion a logical step further to describe the damage that small, limited wars inflict even upon a military victor).

Admonitions include: “If you start to take Liechtenstein, take Liechtenstein.”

Karlchen (sometimes Charlotte) Von Claustrowitz was the sole heir of a family of Imperial knights in the Schwalmish foothills of Hessen’s Westerwald.

Born on the family Rittergut and educated the Academia Nassauensis in Herborn, during the Napoleonic period he participated in many small, unproductive military campaigns, eventually gaining command of his own field desk and camp stool.

Recently re-discovered in a dusty suggestion box in Marburg, his writings were nearly forgotten and lost to history as a result of parchment mold issues in the Hessian State Archives .