Posts

Leadership Chooses Blue Pill While Living In A Muslim Matrix

The Matrix movie’s main character, Neo, gets a clear picture of reality after choosing to take the red pill instead of a blue one.  It is the same with those who have taken or listened to briefings from counter jihad experts concerning the Global Islamic Movement and its threat doctrine. That picture reveals an extremely well organized, visible, and subversive movement throughout our country led by The Muslim Brotherhood to replace our system of government with Sharia Law.

The signs of the Brotherhood’s success are evident in our churches, as well as our: educational, financial, medical, military, law enforcement, and governmental institutions. Yet our leadership in every realm continue to take the cowardly, indifferent route and swallow the blue pill which in the movie allows one to remain ignorant of their true surroundings. Even those in conservative organizations choose to remain woefully ill-informed about the Islamic threat within our country, to include some Tea Party and Young Republican groups.

This subversion by the Islamic movement, and more specifically the Muslim Brotherhood, took root decades ago through organizations like the Muslim Student’s Organization (MSA) which was founded in January, 1963 at the University of Illinois. Saudi Arabia then and now is largely responsible for the flourishing and spawning of the MSA, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and many others by pouring billions of dollars into our country for purposes of spreading Islam.

These organizations are established not to promote good relationships with fellow Americans, but simply as a means to expand their power to establish a Caliphate in order to proclaim Sharia Law the law of the land. Their goals would mean the destruction of the US Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. See numerous open-sourced material for clarification, one being The Explanatory Memorandum.

The recent naming of a Muslim Brotherhood connected military chaplain, Walid Habash, to review training given to Air Force Special Forces on anti-terrorism is a perfect example of governmental leadership meandering through the Muslim Matrix unaware. The reason for the review? A complaint against the trainer and his material was brought to the Pentagon’s attention by the Muslim Brotherhood/HAMAS organization, CAIR.

According to Paul Sperry’s article in FrontPageMag,

Military “Brass decided to launch the review after receiving a letter from the Council on American-Islamic Relations last month demanding the commander of US Air Force Special Operations sever ties with longtime counter terrorism instructor Patrick Dunleavy, claiming his lessons “contain anti-Islamic content.” CAIR, a suspected terrorist front organization, did not cite any examples of content from his “Dynamics of International Terrorism” course to support its claim.”

So, the Pentagon takes the advice of CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in the history of the country, to investigate an expert who trains our Special Forces about prison radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Further, the Pentagon names another known Muslim Brotherhood linked military chaplain to run the investigation. Please reread this paragraph over several times. *Take action, see link below.

This scenario is akin to an elementary school principal taking direction from a known pedophilia ring leader to investigate an expert in child crimes who is teaching parents how to protect their children, and advising the principal to hire a known pedophile to critique the expert.

The degree to which known terrorist organizations work out in the open, like the Muslim Brotherhood posing as HAMAS, is like a fictional story. And the trend is the average American on the street understands the Islamic threat more than those in leadership positions across this nation. It is a national embarrassment when those responsible for protecting American’s interests, spiritual lives, and yes physical safety continue to choose the coward’s way out and cover their ears and eyes to the truth.

The truth of ongoing subversion by Islamic groups coupled with an invasion through the Refugee Resettlement Program and other legal immigration methods is evident to even the most casual observer, but not those who are making critical decisions concerning America’s future.

The one catch always comes back to which color pill is taken. Ultimately it comes down to what is desired, truth or fiction. There is no middle ground. If you want the truth, it is easily attainable through resources that explain the reality in which we are living.

Geert Wilders of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands said,

“The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world of the parallel society created by mass-migration…All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen.”

In today’s climate, most leadership want to continue down a path of make-believe. It will require the populace to replace those leaders with ones in reality. Plan now for 2018 elections, for this may be more important than the presidential election. Have you considered running?

TAKE ACTION BY SENDING a message to support counter-terrorism trainer Patrick Dunleavy and oppose CAIR.

Saudi involvement in 9/11 ‘deliberately covered up at highest levels’ of U.S. government

What has the U.S. gained by doing the Saudis’ bidding all these years? Has global jihad terrorism abated? Have the Saudis stopped spreading their violent and virulent Wahhabi ideology around the world? Have the Saudis stopped the rise of the Islamic State? In fact, the whole “alliance” has been a disaster that has severely weakened the United States.

“How US covered up Saudi role in 9/11,” by Paul Sperry, New York Post, April 17, 2016:

In its report on the still-censored “28 pages” implicating the Saudi government in 9/11, “60 Minutes” last weekend said the Saudi role in the attacks has been “soft-pedaled” to protect America’s delicate alliance with the oil-rich kingdom.

That’s quite an understatement.

Actually, the kingdom’s involvement was deliberately covered up at the highest levels of our government. And the coverup goes beyond locking up 28 pages of the Saudi report in a vault in the US Capitol basement. Investigations were throttled. Co-conspirators were let off the hook.

Case agents I’ve interviewed at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in Washington and San Diego, the forward operating base for some of the Saudi hijackers, as well as detectives at the Fairfax County (Va.) Police Department who also investigated several 9/11 leads, say virtually every road led back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.

Yet time and time again, they were called off from pursuing leads. A common excuse was “diplomatic immunity.”

Those sources say the pages missing from the 9/11 congressional inquiry report — which comprise the entire final chapter dealing with “foreign support for the September 11 hijackers” — details “incontrovertible evidence” gathered from both CIA and FBI case files of official Saudi assistance for at least two of the Saudi hijackers who settled in San Diego.

Some information has leaked from the redacted section, including a flurry of pre-9/11 phone calls between one of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy, and the transfer of some $130,000 from then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s family checking account to yet another of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego.

An investigator who worked with the JTTF in Washington complained that instead of investigating Bandar, the US government protected him — literally. He said the State Department assigned a security detail to help guard Bandar not only at the embassy, but also at his McLean, Va., mansion.

The source added that the task force wanted to jail a number of embassy employees, “but the embassy complained to the US attorney” and their diplomatic visas were revoked as a compromise.

Former FBI agent John Guandolo, who worked 9/11 and related al Qaeda cases out of the bureau’s Washington field office, says Bandar should have been a key suspect in the 9/11 probe.

“The Saudi ambassador funded two of the 9/11 hijackers through a third party,” Guandolo said. “He should be treated as a terrorist suspect, as should other members of the Saudi elite class who the US government knows are currently funding the global jihad.”

But Bandar held sway over the FBI.

After he met on Sept. 13, 2001, with President Bush in the White House, where the two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony, the FBI evacuated dozens of Saudi officials from multiple cities, including at least one Osama bin Laden family member on the terror watch list. Instead of interrogating the Saudis, FBI agents acted as security escorts for them, even though it was known at the time that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens.

“The FBI was thwarted from interviewing the Saudis we wanted to interview by the White House,” said former FBI agent Mark Rossini, who was involved in the investigation of al Qaeda and the hijackers. The White House “let them off the hook.”

What’s more, Rossini said the bureau was told no subpoenas could be served to produce evidence tying departing Saudi suspects to 9/11. The FBI, in turn, iced local investigations that led back to the Saudis….

RELATED ARTICLES:

“Palestinian” tried to stab Israelis so he could “marry virgins in Paradise”

UK: Muslim “anti-radicalization expert” says murdered Ahmadi “not real Muslim”

Pentagon uses forged document to show Islamic State in ‘desperation’ mode and ‘beginning to feel the pressure’?

More Baghdad Bob antics from the Pentagon.

“Desperate: Pentagon Peddles Suspect Docs to Prove ISIS ‘Evil,’” by Jordan Schachtel and Edwin Mora, Breitbart, December 22, 2015:

Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren highlighted what may be a forged document to insist that the Islamic State is in “desperation” mode and “beginning to feel the pressure” of the U.S.-led coalition’s efforts against the terror group.

Throughout its rampage across the Middle East, the Islamic State has committed mass executions against innocent men, women, and children, using brutal methods to torment and end innocent lives. There exists overwhelming evidence that the Islamic State has persecuted and executed religious and ethnic minorities, for no reason other than the fact that they do not follow Islam. The holy warriors frequently brag about their actions, and post videos of their savage execution methods on social media. They have beheaded countless individuals, and burned others alive, showcasing their barbarism for the world to see.

The United States government, in its information campaign against the jihadi group, has sought to highlight these atrocities. But this time, the Pentagon appears to have overstepped its bounds.

On Tuesday, Pentagon Spokesman Col. Steve Warren tweeted: “ISIL fighters ordered to dress as ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] and commit atrocities before fleeing Fallujah,” attaching a document purportedly drafted by the Islamic State.

The purported Islamic State flier orders citizens of Fallujah to blow up mosques, to “assault some women,” and to kill “civilians, torture them and film them.” It also calls for the filming of executions, among other inhumane actions.

In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, the Pentagon spokesman said the supposedly recovered documents provide that Islamic State is “beginning to feel some of this pressure that we’ve been applying to them.” According to Col. Warren, the document was obtained by Iraqi security forces from a unit within the Islamic State.

Russian state-media and some U.S. publications have quickly picked up on the spokesman’s post and conference call with reporters, assuming the documents are accurate and legitimate.

“Clearly, this isn’t the behavior of a legitimate government or of a legitimate military force,” he said. “It’s the behavior of thugs, it’s the behavior of killers and it’s the behavior of terrorists,” Warren added.

“The reason I bring this up is to illustrate where ISIL is right now. I would submit to you that we’re starting to see a change in their behavior that may be related to some desperation,” the Pentagon spokesman said.

The document, however, appears to be a forgery, as there are factual, chronological, and locational issues with the flier.

For one, the memo is dated 1436. The current Islamic year is 1437.

Secondly, the document is signed by the Islamic State’s “Ninawa Province.” But Fallujah is not located in Ninawa Province. Fallujah lies in Anbar Province.

It also requests that Islamic State fighters send execution videos to Al Arabiya (headquartered in Saudi Arabia) and Al Jazeera (headquartered in Qatar), the two predominant Sunni networks in the Middle East. Yet, Islamic State has its own sophisticated media presence.

There are other more subtle errors in the Arabic language version, which has been pointed out by social media users in response to the Pentagon spokesman’s post.

Breitbart News has found that the memo is at least over two months old, as it was posted by an Iraqi man on social media on October 16.

Islamic State supporters and others have taken to Twitter, highlighting the spokesman’s tweet and citing it as proof that the U.S. government is not to be trusted….

Pennsylvania: Muslim teen indicted for aiding the Islamic State

Pentagon Not Targeting Islamic State Training Camps

“If we know the location of these camps, and the president wants to destroy ISIS, why are the camps still functioning?” Excellent question. And no answer was forthcoming. Why not? Is it because there could be no possible explanation for this that makes sense in terms of American national security and that of the free world?

“Pentagon Not Targeting Islamic State Training Camps,” by Bill Gertz, Washington Free Beacon, August 28, 2015:

The Pentagon has not conducted airstrikes against an estimated 60 Islamic State (IS) training camps that are supplying thousands of fighters each month to the terror group, according to defense and intelligence officials.

The camps are spread throughout Islamic State-controlled areas of Iraq and Syria and are off limits in the U.S.-led international bombing campaign because of concerns about collateral damage, said officials familiar with planning and execution of the yearlong bombing campaign.

Additionally, the IS (also known as ISIS or ISIL) camps have been so successful that Islamic State leaders are considering expanding the camps to Libya and Yemen. Both states have become largely ungoverned areas in recent years.

The failure to target the training camps with U.S. and allied airstrikes is raising questions among some defense and intelligence officials about the commitment of President Obama and his senior aides to the current anti-IS strategy of degrading and ultimately destroying the terror group.

“If we know the location of these camps, and the president wants to destroy ISIS, why are the camps still functioning?” one official critical of the policy asked.

The camps are regarded by U.S. intelligence analysts as a key element in the terror group’s successes in holding and taking new territory. The main benefit of the training camps is that they are providing a continuous supply of new fighters.

An additional worry of intelligence analysts is that some of the foreign fighters being trained in the camps will eventually return to their home countries in Europe and North America to carry out terror attacks.

A White House spokesman declined to comment on the failure to bomb the terror camps and referred questions to the Pentagon.

Pentagon spokesman Maj. Roger M. Cabiness declined to say why no training camps have been bombed. “I am not going to be able to go into detail about our targeting process,” he said.

Cabiness said the U.S.-led coalition has “hit ISIL [an alternative abbreviation for the Islamic State] with more than 6,000 airstrikes.”

“The coalition has also taken out thousands of fighting positions, tanks, vehicles, bomb factories, and training camps,” he said. “We have also stuck their leadership, including most recently on Aug. 18 when a U.S. military airstrike removed Fadhil Ahmad al-Hayali, also known as Hajji Mutazz, the second in command of the terrorist group, from the battlefield.”

Efforts also are being taken to disrupt IS finances and “make it more difficult for the group to attract new foreign fighters,” Cabiness said in an email.

A Central Command spokesman also declined to provide details of what he said were “operational engagements” against IS training camps.

“Once a target is identified as performing a hostile act, or is part of an obvious hostile force, a training camp for example, we prosecute that target in accordance with the coalition rules of engagement and the law of armed conflict,” the spokesman said.

According to the defense and intelligence officials, one reason the training camps have been off limits is that political leaders in the White House and Pentagon fear hitting them will cause collateral damage. Some of the camps are located near civilian facilities and there are concerns that casualties will inspire more jihadists to join the group.

However, military officials have argued that unless the training camps are knocked out, IS will continue to gain ground and recruit and train more fighters for its operations.

Disclosure that the IS training camps are effectively off limits to the bombing campaign comes as intelligence officials in the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and U.S. Central Command, which is in charge of the conflict, have alleged that senior U.S. officials skewed intelligence reports indicating the U.S. strategy against IS is not working or has been less effective than officials have claimed in public.

The Islamic State controls large parts of Syria and Iraq and has attracted tens of thousands of jihadists in both countries and from abroad. The exact number of fighters is not known but intelligence estimates have indicated the numbers have increased over the past year.

The military campaign, known as Operation Inherent Resolve, appears to be floundering despite a yearlong campaign of airstrikes and military training programs aimed to bolstering Iraqi military forces.

A review of Central Command reports on airstrikes since last year reveals that no attacks were carried out against training camps.

Targets instead included Islamic State vehicles, buildings, tactical units, arms caches, fighting positions, snipers, excavators, mortar and machine gun positions, bunkers, and bomb factories.

The risk-averse nature of the airstrike campaign was highlighted last month by Brig. Gen. Thomas Weidley, chief of staff for what the military calls Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve.

“The coalition continues to use air power responsibly,” Weidley said July 1. “Highly precise deliveries, detailed weaponeering, in-depth target development, collateral damage mitigation, and maximized effects on Daesh, are characteristics of coalition airstrike operation in Iraq and Syria.”

Daesh is another name for the Islamic State.

“The coalition targeting process minimizes collateral damage and maximizes precise effects on Daesh,” Weidley said earlier. “Air crews are making smart decisions and applying tactical patience every day.”

Other coalition spokesman have indicated that targeting has been limited to reaction strikes against operational groups of IS fighters. “When Daesh terrorists expose themselves and their equipment, we will strike them,” Col. Wayne Marotto said May 27.

The military website Long War Journal published a map showing 52 IS training camps and noted that some may no longer be operating because of the U.S.-led bombing campaign.

IS-training-camps

Islamic State training camps in Iraq and Syria. Source: Long War Journal.

According the map, among the locations in Iraq and Syria where IS is operating training camps are Mosul, Raqqah, Nenewa, Kobane, Aleppo, Fallujah, and Baiji.

The group MEMRI obtained a video of an IS training camp in Nenewa Province, Iraq, dated Oct. 1, 2014.

The video shows a desert outpost with tan tents and around 100 fighters who take part in hand-to-hand combat exercises, weapons training, and religious indoctrination….

RELATED ARTICLES:

UNC’s “Literature of 9/11” course indoctrinates students to love jihad terror, hate America

Sweden: Imam tells Muslims: “Do not befriend the unbelievers”

Pentagon: Kurds “Reliable and Effective” Partners in War Against Islamic State

Monday, July 6, 2015 was a red letter day in Washington with Pentagon officials acknowledging the critical role of Kurdish YPG and Peshmerga forces successfully fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq. President Obama appeared at the Pentagon to give an update on the campaign to “degrade and destroy the Islamic state”.  It wasn’t a great score card since his declaration made on national television on September 10, 2014. He suggested that winning the war was going to a “generational conflict’.  “This will not be quick. This is a long-term campaign. (ISIS) is opportunistic and it is nimble,” Obama said. As usual he reiterated that the ISIS campaign was “not a war against Islam”.  This despite that ISIS  practices pure Salafist Islam that has attracted tens of thousands of foreign fighters from across the Muslim ummah. The President still hasn’t addressed a coherent strategy except to commit minimal numbers of  U.S. trainers to develop combat cadres in both Iraq and Syria and conduct air assaults against ISIS targets. During his remarks he pointed to more than 5,000 air strikes in Iraq, Syria and North Africa equivalent to just three days of  air operations during the Gulf Wars.

According to CNN, President Obama suggested that the ‘coalition’ was going after “the heart” of the Islamic State. He exhorted Congress to confirm the replacement head of the Treasury Department, Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Adam Szubin.  He suggested that U.S. Trained forces had some successes on the ground in both Iraq and Syria backed up by air support, without naming them.   They are the Kurdish YPG (Popular Resistance Forces) in Syria and the Peshmerga in Iraq.  In our July New English Review (NER) Article, “Empowering Kurdistan”, those front line Kurdish forces have been the only forces capable of rolling back ISIS forces.  Obama and his national security staff had met with President Barzani  and aides of the Kurdish Regional Government in early May 2015 during the latter’s meetings in Washington seeking quality weapons and support  in the war against ISIS. We noted in our NER article that both KRG and Syrian Kurdish leaders had met separately with Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) in the House and Senate Armed Forces Committee Chairman John McCain (R-AZ).  That resulted in amendments to the National Defense Appropriate Act authorizing military assistance for Kurdish fighting units in both Syria and Iraq.

Watch this C-Span video of President Obama’s Pentagon Conference on the ISIS War, July 6, 2015:

Secretary Ashton Carter and French Defese Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian Pentaon, July 6, 2019 Source Carolyn Kaster AP

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, The Pentagon, July 6, 2015. Source: Carolyn Kaster/AP.

A few hours before President Obama and military leaders briefings on the War against ISIS, there was another Pentagon meeting with a more positive message. This one featured  Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter and French Defense Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian to specifically discuss military aid for the Kurds.  McClatchey had a definitive report on that more substantive meeting recognizing the Kurds as “reliable and effective allies” in the war against ISIS, “Kurdish militia proving to be reliable partner against Islamic State in Syria.”   The McClatchey report noted:

In comments Monday, Defense Secretary Ash Carter acknowledged that Kurdish fighters from the YPG militia are identifying bombing targets for U.S.-led airstrikes. He referred to the militia as “capable,” hailed its “effective action,” and said because of the Kurds’ actions, U.S. forces had been able to “support them tactically.”

It was the first public description by a senior Obama administration official detailing the cooperation that has been unfolding for months between the United States and the militia, which has drawn the ire of key NATO ally Turkey.

The militia’s success is one of the reasons the United States is intensifying its bombing campaign against the Islamic State in Syria, Carter said.

“That’s what we were doing over the weekend north of Raqqa, which is conducting airstrikes that limit ISIL’s freedom of movement and ability to counter those capable Kurdish forces,” Carter said, referring to the Islamic State by a common acronym.

Carter’s singling out of the YPG, or the People’s Protection Units, comes after months in which U.S. officials have said they were putting off a more concerted campaign in Syria in favor of pressing against the Islamic State in Iraq because the U.S. lacked a capable ground partner in Syria. As long ago as October, then Pentagon spokesman John Kirby was blunt about why U.S. activities there were lagging: “We don’t have a willing, capable, effective partner on the ground inside Syria. It’s just a fact.”

Secretary Carter went on to commend the YPG, ironically an offshoot of the Turkish Kurdish resistance PKK, still listed as a terrorist organization. The YPG successes have unnerved Islamist Turkish President Erdogan that he has suggested invading Syria to establish a 100 x 30 mile buffer zone to forestall further Kurdish advances to the west of Kobani on the Turkish frontier at Suruc.  Turkish military leaders are less supportive of that incursion.  Moreover, Erdogan’s agenda may have been effectively eclipsed despite an agreement to form a working coalition with the Turkish National Party, HNP. The latter was one of three minority parties, including the Kemalist CHP and the upstart Kurdish HDP that won a plurality of seats in the Ankara Parliamentary elections of June 7, 2015.

Carter went to site the YPG contributions in Syria:

Backed by U.S. air power, he said, YPG forces have advanced in the past weeks to within 18 miles of Raqqa, the main stronghold of the Islamic State in Syria.

“That’s the manner in which effective and lasting defeat of ISIL will occur, when there are effective local forces on the ground that we can support and enable so that they can take territory, hold territory and make sure that good governance comes in behind it,” Carter said.

How far the YPG will push its offensive is uncertain. Raqqa is not traditionally a Kurdish area, and Kurdish forces, which are said to number an estimated 16,000 troops, are not expected to try to take the city alone.

But the YPG offers a much more robust anti-Islamic State force inside Syria than does the training program the United States has undertaken: so far, only about 190 so-called moderate rebels have been enlisted in the program, which is intended to train 5,000 anti-Islamic State fighters a year.

The United States last month also expanded its airstrikes to northern Aleppo, another key northern Syria city about 100 miles west of Raqqa, putting the Islamic State on notice that a new drive to remove them from what is called the Marea front could be in the offing.

[…]

Carter made it clear that U.S. and allied warplanes are increasingly depending on the Kurdish forces as part of the Pentagon’s broader campaign to defeat the Islamic State.

“We are doing more in Syria from the air,” Carter said. “I think you saw some of that in recent days. And the opportunity to do that effectively is provided in the case of the last few days by the effective action on the ground of Kurdish forces, which gives us the opportunity to support them tactically.”

What has not been addressed publicly is the delivery of quality military weapons and training of YPG and Peshmerga forces who have fought with Soviet era weaponry against U.Sl arms and equipment obtained by ISIS from fleeing Iraqi national forces routed from Mosul in June 2014 and Ramadi in late May 2015. That may soon be coming given the presence of French Defense Minister Le Drian.  You may recall Secretary Carter upon learning of the fall of Ramadi accused Iraqi national forces of having” no will to fight”.  The Kurds exemplify military valor and have a proven record.

Secretary Carter should move expeditiously to release weapons and equipment from the US War Reserve Stock pre-positioned in Israel to the YPG, KURDNAS forces in Syria and Peshmerga in Iraq. Moreover, Gen. James Allen who heads the U.S.-led coalition force should ramp up aerial sorties beyond the paltry 40 sorties used to provide close air support to the YPG this past weekend. President Obama, unfortunately, has yet to recognize the pure Salafist form of Islam that is embodied in the barbaric violence perpetrated by ISIS on women, children, ancient religious minorities and Syrian and Iraqi military prisoners. Yes, Mr. President this is a war against Salafist Islam that the secular Muslim Kurds recognize must be destroyed.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of a female Kurdish fighter known as ‘Rehana’ (Image from Twitter user / @PawanDurani).

Obama’s Rules of Engagement Stymie Air War against the Islamic State

Without boots on the ground providing intelligence feed, the U.S. led coalition air war is failing to “deter, let alone degrade” the ISIS.  How else can you explain 7,000 sorties over Syria and Iraq with less than 25% having ‘bomb releases”? That was the key disturbing finding in a Washington Times (WT) article, U.S. bombers hold fire on Islamic State targets amid ground intel blackout.”

 The U.S. conducted 7,319 sorties over Iraq and Syria as part of Operation Inherent Resolve in the first four months of 2015. Of those, only 1,859 flights — 25.4 percent — had at least one “weapons release,” according to data provided by United States Air Force Central Command. That means that only about one in every four flights dropped a bomb on an Islamic State target.

There have been reports of frustration by U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine pilots engaged in the ISIS air campaign who have acquired targets and yet been commanded to stand down from attacking them. That has led to criticism of the Administration ISIS air war from Members of Congress, most notably, Sen. John McCain who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee cited in the WT report:

The Arizona Republican said at a hearing this year that missions that don’t drop bombs needlessly put American pilots in danger and that U.S. boots on the ground would produce better intelligence that could lead to more effective bombing missions.

 The level of air sorties in the U.S.-led coalition air war is far below those of Gulf Wars I and II and even the Balkan Air campaigns during the Clinton era.  The question is what is causing this?  Many believe it is the restrictive rules of engagement to spare civilian lives, when ISIS fighters move among columns of civilians, effectively using them as human shields.  Further, some analysts ironically believe that these strict rules of engagement actually contribute to civilian casualties by to ISIS. Perhaps this also reflects the misguided Obama Administration obsession in both avoiding collateral damage and avoiding putting special teams on the ground to provide better target intelligence.

.

Israel Air Force Commander Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel. Source: Times of Israel.

Perhaps, the Central Command planners and air war commanders might best heed Israeli Air Force Commander Major General Eshel who was cited in a Defense News article saying:

“We have an offensive capability that is unprecedented and extremely significant which we’ve been developing over years and are now able to implement.

“In small wars, it’s a very significant challenge for us to reduce collateral damage on the other side when the enemy is using all he has to elevate the damage we’re forced to inflict on him,” Eshel said.

“First of all, it’s a moral challenge. … It sounds like a slogan, but we are constantly thinking, planning and operating with this challenge in mind.”

The demonstration of that approach was what  occurred in Operation Defensive Edge against the Hamas rocket and terror tunnel war threatening Israel when the IAF F-16’s flew missions in attacks against urban targets with precision guided 1 ton bombs within 250 meters of IDF troops.  The key is precision strikes based on precise intelligence.

Note these debates about the Pentagon handling of the ISIS air war campaign in the WT article:

Former US Navy Helicopter Pilot, Cmdr. Harmer:

Without ground forces, argues Cmdr. Christopher Harmer, a retired Navy helicopter pilot, U.S. airmen are essentially flying half-blind and, as a result, are returning to base with their bombs still in the bay.

“As long as the body politic or president or whoever is making decisions absolutely refuses to put American air controllers on ground, essentially pilots are flying with one eye closed,” Cmdr. Harmer said. “It’s almost impossible for pilots to designate between [Islamic State] fighters and coalition fighters.”

Cmdr. Harmer, who now serves as a senior naval analyst with the Middle East Security Project at the Institute for the Study for War, said airstrikes can hit big, static targets such as bridges, runways and tanks without on-the-ground guidance. But to be effective in hitting moving targets such as enemy troops in a firefight, U.S. pilots need American joint terminal attack controllers to give specific directions from the ground to guide their missiles precisely.

Fewer targets of opportunity says CENTCOM:

Col. Pat Ryder, spokesman for U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), told reporters Friday that while pilots can often place bombs on targets “within minutes,” it’s very important to be very precise and exercise tactical discipline to protect civilian populations.

“We’re dealing with a hybrid adversary who often hides among the population,” he said. “It’s more important for us to accurately target the enemy with a high degree of precision in order to minimize civilian casualties than it is to strike with such speed or force that would risk disenfranchising the very population we’re there to protect.”

Richard Brennan of RAND Corporation has a more pragmatic assessment:

But to make things work without a ground force and employing only air power, the rules of engagement must change, argues Richard Brennan, a senior political scientist at RAND Corp.

Mr. Brennan said the Islamic State, in adapting and responding to U.S. airstrikes, has started to intermingle its fighters with civilians to frustrate U.S. attacks from the air.

In an effort to protect civilian lives, the strict rules of engagement are doing the opposite by giving the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, the opportunity to kill civilians, he said.

“Even though the United States isn’t doing the killing, by its inability to use force in all but the cases where they’re sure of not having collateral damage, we’re ceding the advantage to ISIS in many situations,” Mr. Brennan said.

Looks to us that CENTCOM needs to whistle up a session with IAF General Eshel to understand how the Israelis do precision hits against Hamas in heavily urbanized Gaza City and Hezbollah Syrian missile and weapons transfers.  Both Cmdr. Harmer of the Institute for the Study of War and Brennan of the RAND Corporation are correct about the stringent rules for engagement in the air war against. They are generating more collateral civilian casualties.  Something that didn’t dawn on the Metternichean Munchkins in the Obama National Security Council who call the shots over Pentagon objections.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Obama’s Policies degrading the “Combat Effectiveness” of the U.S. Armed Forces

By evaluating an overwhelming amount of evidence that has been building for 6 ½ years, the obvious conclusion personnel with extensive military experience will come to, is that Obama’s military policies have been degrading the finest U.S. military fighting force in history. Over the last 6 ½ years, the U.S. Armed Forces has been hollowed out by Obama, his Social Experiment On Diversity has severely fractured unit cohesiveness, his “Politically Correct Policies” have negatively affected unit morale, and the  “Combat Effectiveness” of the U.S. military is being degraded. Tip of the spear combat units are being compromised by preventing military combat veterans, with a great deal of combat experience, from providing their invaluable operational experience being considered and evaluated, in the debate within the Obama administration, over whether female military personnel should be exposed to hand to hand combat against highly trained enemy infantry units and enemy special operations personnel. None of the below highlighted actions, which have been degrading the “Combat Effectiveness” of the U.S. Armed Forces, for the last 6 ½ years, could have been instituted without the willing support of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who should have resigned, rather than execute Obama’s below listed policies that have been degrading the U.S. Armed Forces.

The Flag and General Officer Corps have been prevented from opposing and challenging the hollowing out of the U.S. Armed Forces and the degrading of the “Combat Effectiveness” of the US  military by the occupant in the Oval Office. A total of 195 Flag, General, and Senior Military Officers, who may have disagreed with Obama’s “Politically Correct Policies’ and his “Social Experiment on Diversity” that was negatively affecting unit cohesiveness, the moral, and the “Combat Effectiveness” of the U.S. Armed Forces, were purged. Senior enlisted military personnel who utilized their right to complain thru the chain of command about many of the new policies, to express their concerns, were also been purged, and in some cases were court martialed and dishonorably discharged.

The U.S. Army is being reduced to the manning level that existed prior to WWII. The U.S. Navy is being reduce to the number of ships it had prior to WWI down from President Regan’s 584 ship Navy to Obama’s 284 ships Navy today (1/3 of those ships are going thru shipyard availability and modernizations programs). Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert told lawmakers that the Navy would need a 450-ship fleet, in order to meet the global needs of combatant commanders.  The most effective long range offensive missile in the U.S. Navy arsenal, the Tomahawk Missile (TLAM), is being scrapped by Obama. The TLAM  combines accuracy, range lethality, mobility defense against being jammed, is relatively low cost, and is simple to fix and change targets.

When the Navy reordered 980 TLAMs to bring its inventory current, with the most up-to-date models, not only was the request denied by Obama’s civilian appointees at DOD, the decision was taken to completely end production of all TLAMs in fiscal 2016. No orders for the TLAM will be allowed to be placed after autumn 2015, and there is no replacement missile system under development or in the works to take its place.

NO STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN OFFERED TO THE US NAVY BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THIS VERY EFFECTIVE WEAPON. The TLAM’s usefulness as a weapon system in combat will expire in 5 years.

In violation of a Federal Law which requires the President to seek approval from Congress in advance of the release of prisoners from the Naval Prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GITMO), Obama released 5 dangerous Radical Islamic Taliban Terrorist Generals from GITMO for an Army deserter, Sgt Bowe Bergdahl. According to an elected Combat Veteran For Congress, Representative Duncan D. Hunter, Maj-USMCR (D-CA-52), a ransom was paid in February 2014 to an Afghanistan middleman by Spec Ops personnel which was another violation of Federal Law by Obama. Obama doubled down and released 5 more dangerous terrorists from GITMO while Americans were distracted by the massive press reports of Obama’s Executive Order preventing ICE from deporting 5 million Illegal Aliens, an in effect cancelling all deportation except in some very special cases. The occupant of the Oval Office then released an additional 6 dangerous terrorist from GITMO, labeling then as refugees—now terrorists are designated as refugees by Obama. Those releases are an assault on the U.S. military who captured them, sometimes at a loss of life, because they will soon be killing American servicemen again.

The “Justification” given by the Obama administration for the exchange of 5 dangerous Radical Islamic Taliban Terrorist Generals was “We leave no military personnel behind”:

(1)   Obama and Hilary Clinton left 4 Americans behind, including 2 Navy SEALs, to be murdered in Benghazi by Radical Islamic Terrorists, while there were armed aircraft less than 2 hours away that could have saved their lives, but the US Armed Forces was prevented from rescuing of the 4 Americans, because Obama refused to execute “Cross Border Authority” which would have been required to authorize a military rescue mission—violating the. Sacred trust  “We leave no military personnel behind.

(2)   Obama left Sgt Andrew Tahmooressi, USMC behind (an Iraqi War Combat Marine Veteran suffering from PTSD) to be tortured in a Mexican prison for over 7 months; his only crime was to mistakenly cross the wide open southern border because of bad signage on the US side of the border— violating the. Sacred trust  “We leave no military personnel behind”:

(3)   Since January 2012, for over 1600 days, Obama has left Sgt Amir Hekmati, USMC behind (an Iraqi War Combat Marine Veteran) to be tortured in an Iranian prison; his only crime was to seek and obtain permission form the Iranian Government, in advance, to visit his dying grandmother—- violating the. Sacred trust “We leave no military personnel behind”.

In January of 2013, the Obama administration announced its decision to make female military personnel eligible for assignment to direct ground combat units by January 2016, including the infantry. The Obama civilian appointees in the Pentagon are forcing the U.S. Army to insert women into the one of the most grueling training regimens in the entire military establishment, the U.S. Army Rangers. They are planning to reduce the physical requirements for military personnel to qualify as a Ranger so that women will be able to pass the rigorous training and qualifications; that will negatively affect the “Combat Effectiveness” of one of the most important tip of the spear units in the Army.

A study was conducted by the British Ministry of Defense, which tears to shreds the case for women in close ground combat. One of the findings of the study was that under conditions of high intensity close quarter battle, “team cohesion is of such significance that the employment of women in this environment would represent a risk to the “Combat Effectiveness” and there would be no gains in terms of “Combat Effectiveness” to offset it.” The question is whether women should purposely be placed in situations where they must close with the enemy, one on one,  in extremes of physical endurance, climate, and terrain, brutal and violent death, injury, horror, and fear, just to satisfy the “Politically Correct” feminist agenda.

Obama is planning to compromise extremely high standards of tip of the spear units that have resulted in outstanding combat results for the last 75 years, Obama’s compromise of those tip of the spear units will be destruction to the “Combat Effectiveness” of units like the U.S. Marine Corps Infantry, US Army Rangers, the Green Berets, Delta Force, and U.S. Navy SEALs, and will disrupt the “Warrior Spirit” and “Ethos” so carefully nurtured over the years by the finest military force in the world.

China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, and the American people are fully aware that the military strength has been systematically degraded by Obama for 6 ½ years, and believe that the National Security of the United States has been severely compromised by Obama’s hollowing out of the U.S. Armed Forces, and by Obama’s willful intent to ignore the external military threats to the Republic. At the same time, during those 6 ½ years, China, Russia, and Iran have been building modern conventional and nuclear military weapons systems——the US military has not be able to keep pace because of sequestration and being bogged down fighting al Q’ieda,  the Taliban, and ISIL. While ISIL expands, is prosecuting the genocide of Christian, and developing sleeper cells in all 50 states, Obama does very little (ISIL recently stated they now have 71 trained Radical Islamic Terrorists operating in the U.S.).

Obama is keeping his promise, made to Russian Prime Minister in an overheard comment on an open mike prior to the 2012 election, when he said that his hands would not be tied after the election. Russia continues its invasion of Ukraine after its successful the naked aggression and conquest of Crimea; that has all but been ignored by Obama and Ukraine’s request for major defensive weapons systems for over 2 years have fallen on deaf ears in Washington. Russia announced it is shipping S-300 anti-air missiles to Iran to prevent Israel from striking its nuclear weapons development facilities; Obama’s only comment was that he is not surprised. Russia is upgrading its Naval base in Cuba, while Obama removes Cuba from the U.S. State Department’s list of state sponsored terrorist nations and recognizing Cuba while Cuba is supporting the terrorist activities of FARC and Venezuela in South America

The Department of Homeland issued a bulletin to all police agencies in 2009, naming all military Veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan as potential terrorist.  At the same time Obama is allowing hundreds of thousands of Muslims to enter the U.S. thru the UN Muslim Refugee Resettlement Program while preventing intelligent analysts from checking their backgrounds for possible ties to ISIL and Al Q’ieda Radical Islamic Terrorists. At the same time, the Greek Catholic Relief Agency has stated over 300,000 Syrian and Assyrian Christian refugees are being prevented from entering the U.S.

Obama has imposed new and dangerous Rules Of Engagement (ROE) for the U.S. Armed Forces executed by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, and retained by his replacement General Martin Dempsey. Each year since 2008 when the new ROE took effect, 2049 more military personnel per year have been Wounded In Action, each year, for 5 years (a total of 10,245 more personnel have been wounded and/or maimed for life), an increase of 378%.  Each year since 2008 when the new and “dangerous” ROE took effect, 368 more military personnel have been Killed In Action, each year, for 5 years (a total of 1840 more personnel have been killed), an increase of 458%.

Obama has been launching attacks on the profound religious beliefs of Christians in the U.S. Armed Forces, in violation of the Freedom of Religion guaranteed to every American in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Chaplains are having their sermons and even places where they can pray censored to be sure they are Politically Correct. Chaplains reading letters from Cardinals to their parishioners in the pulpit have been prevented from doing so. Military personnel are prevented from having bibles in their work places.  Chaplains are being prevented from offering bibles to patients in military hospital rooms, unless they specifically ask for them. Base commanders on military installations are prevented from allowing bibles to be placed in the base hotel rooms. The massive 6 ½  year assault on Christians in the US Military by the Obama Administration is outlined in the video that can be watched by clicking on this link from the Thomas More Law Center;  http://bit.ly/HAfq8Z. It is a dangerous and extreme anti-Christian program being driven by Obama himself against members of the US Armed Forces; Obama has not stopped this unprecedented assault.  What would President George Washington, President Lincoln, President Teddy Roosevelt, President Truman, President Kennedy, President Eisenhower, and President Reagan have to say about Obama’s shameful assault on “Freedom of Religion” in the U.S. Armed Forces?

Open homosexuality in the US Armed Forces has been decreed by Obama, in violation of General George Washington’s 238 year old US Military Regulations. Gay Rights Political Events are now held on U.S. Military bases in violation of U.S. Military Regulations which prevent any political activities on any military installation. U.S. Military Color guards and military personnel in uniform have been ordered to march in Gay Rights parades (apolitical event) in violation of U.S. Military Regulations. The civilian appointees of the Obama administration in the Pentagon, have been trying to cover up the fact that 10,400 straight military male enlisted personnel have been sexually assaulted by gay male military personnel in their barracks and on their ships—creating retention problems, and that thousands of straight female members in the military hae been sexually assaulted by lesbian military personnel.

Poster in Officer’s Club, Vandenberg AFB, CA:

During the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections, the Obama administration, through Attorney General Eric Holder, actively encouraged State Secretaries of Democratically controlled states, to disregard Federal Voting Laws that required the timely mailing out absentee ballots to active duty military personnel, so they can receive the ballots on time, in order to return them on a date specific, so they can be counted on election day.  As a result, hundreds of thousands of military votes have never been counted, denying members of the U.S. Armed Forces their basic fundamental American rights to vote.

Although the Veterans Administration is supposed to support the interests of military veterans, yet it has slowed down the process of allowing veterans to file claims for benefits to the point where veterans are waiting for months and even years to have their claims processed.  When veterans go to the VA, because of new regulations imposed by Obama, they are being asked if they own firearms, if they have ever been depressed, and if their spouses handle the family finances which is against privacy laws. Then that information is being used to declare them mentally incompetent and deny them their Constitutional rights to own, purchase, or possess firearms in accordance with the 5th and 2nd Amendments to the US Constitution. Eric Holder’s Justice Department has put them on a list of Americans who are prevented from owning firearms in violation of their 2nd Amendment rights. Many Veterans cannot get help with their medical issues, and have to wait hours on the phone to get any response at all; an average of 23 Veterans are committing suicide each day.

The Army ROTC cadets at Arizona State University were recently humiliated by being forced to walk around on campus in full military uniforms wearing Red Pumps for an event called “Walk A Mile in Her Shoes” to raise awareness of sexual violence against women on college campuses. As reported by the Washington Times, in 2014, the Army encouraged participation in the April 2015 event.  However: this year, the ROTC candidates at ASU were faced with a volunteer event “that became mandatory.”  Or, they were “voluntold” they have to participate or be faced with discipline action. The Cadets were forced to walk around out of uniform (because they were not wearing military boots) in violation of Army Regulation AR670-1, entitled Wear and Appearance of Army Uniform and Insignia—“A military member must wear his or her uniform in a way that projects an image of discipline and order and is prohibited from wearing a combination of civilian and military clothing.”

A twelve month survey of internal data of personnel in the U.S. Army from the period through early 2015 was obtained by “USA Today”, it shows starling negative findings of their very low morale, including in the findings are the following:

  • More than half of some 770,000 soldiers (52% or 403,564 soldiers) are pessimistic about their future in the military, agreeing with statements such as “I rarely count on good things happening to me.”
  • 48% or about 370,000 soldiers are unhappy in their jobs, have little satisfaction in or commitment to their jobs, and would have chosen another if they had it to do over again. Only 28% felt good about what they do.
  • More than half reported poor nutrition and sleep. Only 14% said they are eating right and getting enough rest.
  • Two-thirds were borderline or worse for an area called “catastrophic thinking,” where poor scores mean the soldier has trouble adapting to change or dwells on the worst possible things happening.
  • Nearly 40% or about 300,000 soldiers didn’t trust their immediate supervisor or fellow soldiers in their unit or didn’t feel respected or valued. Only 32% felt good about bosses and peers.

General Martin Dempsey has been trying to push the U.S. Marine Corps to lower standards for women in order to let them pass the Infantry Officer’s Course, regardless of how it will affect the “Combat Effectiveness” of the U.S. Marine Corps. If a lower standard for Infantry Officers is forced upon the US Marine Corps, it would result in weakening the infantry arm of the U.S. Marine Corps needlessly, in order to comply with Obama’s “Political Correctness.”  Senator John McCain told Fox News’ American Newsroom, “General Dempsey is the most disappointing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that I have ever seen. and I have seen many of them.  He has supported the plan to completely withdraw from Afghanistan. He’s basically been the echo chamber for the president, and one of the reasons why we are in the situation that we’re in, in the world today…..is because of his lack of either knowledge or candor about the situation in the Middle East, and it has done great damage.”

The real threat to the National Security interests of the United States and the American citizens is the internal threat, the occupant of Oval Office who has repeatedly said he doesn’t want the United States to be the only Superpower in the world..

Please watch this very important video:

We strongly encourage you to read the article below.

The Washington Times

U.S. military decimated under Obama, only ‘marginally able’ to defend nation

By Rowan Scarborough – The Washington Times

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

The U.S. military is shedding so many troops and weapons it is only “marginally able” to defend the nation and falls short of the Obama administration’s national security strategy, according to a new report by The Heritage Foundation on Tuesday.

“The U.S. military itself is aging. It’s shrinking in size,” said Dakota Wood, a Heritage analyst. “And it’s quickly becoming problematic in terms of being able to address more than one major conflict.”

President Obama’s latest strategy is to size the armed forces pledged in 2014 so that the four military branches have sufficient troops, ships, tanks and aircraft to win a large war, while simultaneously acting to “deny the objectives of — or impose unacceptable costs on — another aggressor in another region.”

In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state.

But Heritage’s “2015 Index of U.S. Military Strength” took a look, in detail, at units and weapons, region by region, and came to a different conclusion.

“The U.S. military is rapidly approaching a one-war-capable force,” said Mr. Wood, a former Marine Corps officer and strategic planner. “So [it is] able to handle a major war and then having just a bit of residual capability to handle other minor crises that might pop up. … But it is a far cry from being a two-war force.”

“The consistent decline in funding and the consequent shrinking of the force are putting it under significant pressure,” the report concluded. “The cumulative effect of such factors has resulted in a U.S. military that is marginally able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests.”

The index report is part scorecard, part research tool.

It grades the Army, which is shrinking from 570,000 soldiers to 440,000 or lower, and the Navy, which is failing to achieve a 300-ship force, as only “marginal” in military power. The Air Force’s fleet of fighters and long-range bombers is judged “strong.”

Heritage says the military cannot fight two wars at once.

The report said the Army historically commits 21 brigade dombat teams to one war. Several years ago, that left just 21 more brigades for a second war and none for strategic reserve.

But the problem is more acute. The Army announced in 2013 it may go as low as 33 brigades, far short of the 50 brigades Heritage says are needed.

The Army has been battered by automatic budget cuts known as “sequestration.” A bipartisan budget deal provided some relief last year, but the slashing could come back in 2016 without another agreement.

Gen. Raymond Odierno, Army chief of staff, has said that if the active force is squeezed down to 420,000 soldiers, it could not carry out all global commitments.

The Navy would need 346 ships to carry out two large campaigns, Heritage said, but its fleet is only 284.

At the report’s release, Rep. J. Randy Forbes, Virginia Republican, talked of all the technological advancements that led to complete air superiority in the 1991 Desert Storm operation over Iraq.

Today, the House Armed Services Committee member said the Air Force “would say we are dangerously close to no longer being able to guarantee that air dominance that we could guarantee in Kuwait.”

“If you listen to the Army, they will give testimony they can no longer guarantee. You talk about two wars — they testified they can’t guarantee that we could win one war,” Mr. Forbes said. “The Navy will tell you if we get to 260 ships, we cease to be a superpower; we become a regional power.”

The Pentagon’s base budget, minus overseas war costs, has decreased under Mr. Obama, from $527 billion in 2010 to about $496 billion in each of the last three budgets. The president is asking for an increase in 2016 to $534 billion.

“The enemies that we have out there, and competitors, are making very smart investments accounting for their strategic objectives and interests,” Mr. Wood said.

Lawsuits filed to determine Effectiveness of Women in Combat

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed two different Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits in different federal district courts to obtain results from testing women for direct combat roles. One lawsuit was filed against the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and the 2nd lawsuit was filed against the Department of Army in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Both lawsuits were filed on behalf of Elaine Donnelly and the Center for Military Readiness (“CMR”) to obtain records related to the effectiveness of women in direct combat roles which should have been provided as a result of previous Freedom of Information Act requests.

Thomas More Law Center Files Two Lawsuits to Obtain Military Documentation on Effectiveness of Women to Close-In and Kill the Enemy

Since the founding of CMR in 1993, Elaine Donnelly, as its president, has been researching and reporting on various aspects of social policy in all branches of military service. TMLC’s Senior Trial Counsel, Erin Mersino, has been assisting Donnelly’s efforts by filing numerous FOIA requests on all branches of military service. Commenting on the two lawsuits filed yesterday, Mersino stated, “Adherence to the FOIA is crucial because it allows the public access to our government.  The documents we requested under FOIA are time sensitive.  Permanent decisions regarding women in the infantry are projected to be made as soon as January 2016.  The public should be informed of such important matters that directly affect our national security.”

CMR has already prepared an analysis of the study conducted by the British Ministry of Defense, which tears to shreds the case for women in ground close combat.  One of the findings of the study was that under conditions of high intensity close quarter battle, “team cohesion is of such significance that the employment of women in this environment would represent a risk to combat effectiveness and no gain in terms of combat effectiveness to offset it.” The entire analysis can be found at:

http://cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/CMRPolicyAnalysisFebruary2015.pdf

In January of 2013, the Obama administration announced its decision to make female military personnel eligible for assignment to direct ground combat units, including the infantry, by January of 2016.  Since then the various departments of the military have been collecting data concerning the safety and effectiveness of women on the front lines. TMLC has submitted numerous FOIA requests on behalf of Elaine Donnelly and the CMR in an effort to obtain information prior to the conclusion of the military’s studies in January 2016.  The recent FOIA requests to the Army and to SOCOM were part of that concerted effort.

Although a small group of service women initially volunteered for tests, that number has dwindled.  Obtaining the documents asked for in the lawsuits will allow Elaine Donnelly to analyze the safety and effectiveness of allowing women in the infantry and provide its findings and analysis to the public and to the military at a crucial point in time.

Of particular interest to the Law Center is the attempt by the Pentagon to insert women into the one of the most grueling training regimens in the entire military establishment, the U.S. Army Rangers.  The deep concern now is that the Pentagon will reduce the physical requirements so that women will pass.

Richard Thompson, TMLC’s President and Chief Counsel, commented:

“The question is not whether women should serve in combat, they already do, and admirably. The question is whether women should purposely be placed in situations where they must close with the enemy in extremes of physical endurance, climate and terrain, brutal and violent death, injury, horror, and fear, just to satisfy the feminist agenda. Too many generals in the Pentagon know better, but they succumb to political pressure acting more like politicians than true military leaders. They already know that the end result will be compromised standards, destruction of the effectiveness of units like the Rangers and Navy Seals, and disruption of the warrior spirit and ethos so carefully nurtured over the years.”

Decapitating the U.S. Military

Many Americans were shocked by the Islamic State video of the beheading of the photo journalist James Foley. Perhaps they had already forgotten the decapitation of Wall Street Journal journalist, Daniel Pearl in 2002. Most certainly, the memory of the murder of nearly 3,000 on September 11, 2001 with the destruction of the World Trade Towers has begun to recede.

What most do not know is that decapitation is a requirement in the Islamic holy war and holy book, the Koran.

“So when you meet in Jihad in Allah’s cause those who disbelieve, smite their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them…” (Surat 47, al-Qital—the Killing–, Ayat 4.

“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks and smite them over all their fingers and toes.” – Surat al-Anfel (The Spoils), Ayat/Verse 12.)

If I were a jihadist who wanted to undermine the capacity of the United States of America to both defend itself and/or to wage war on those who regard us as their enemy, I would welcome what is currently occurring to weaken our military. It is exactly what President Obama and a compliant Congress has been doing for some time now.

In the name of the “sequester”, an across-the-board reduction in federal spending, the military has suffered the most despite being the single key factor to defend the nation and to project our power to protect our allies.

An August 26 article in Politico reported that the five leading U.S. defense firms, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing’s defense unit, and Northrop Grumman, have eliminated 70,000 jobs since 2008 through layoffs, buyouts, attrition, or, as Boeing did, moving employees to the commercial side of its business. “There’s little momentum in Congress to undo the current caps on discretionary federal spending and, facing a war-weary public, U.S. officials are pledging to avoid sending combat troops to today’s hotspots, including Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine.”

As reported by Bloomberg News in July, “The U.S. Navy can’t meet its funding needs for surface warships and a new class of nuclear attack submarines from 2025 to 2034 according to the service’s latest 30-year shipbuilding plan.” The Navy is just one element of the Pentagon’s current five-year funding plan “in an era of declining defense spending.” It will impact the need for new submarines, the planned full production of F-35 fighter jets, and a new long-range strike bomber.

In March The Washington Times reported that “President Obama is seeking to abolish two highly successful missile programs that experts say have helped the U.S. Navy maintain military superiority for the past several decades.” Obama wants to eliminate the famed Tomahawk and Hellfire missile programs. Why?

We have, however, billions for a variety of welfare programs, those devoted to “environmental research”, and countless other examples of sheer waste.

In January, commentator Mike Snyder raised the question, “Why are Dozens of High Ranking Officers Being Purged from the U.S. Military?” He noted that “Since Barack Obama has been in the White House, high ranking military officers have been removed from their positions at a rate that is absolutely unprecedented. Things have gotten so bad that a number of retired generals are publicly speaking out about the ‘purge’ of the U.S. military that they believe is taking place.”

Retired Major General Paul Vallely was quoted as having said, “He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon, and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

Recognizing the threat that the Islamic State represents, even Secretary of State, John Kerry, has spoken of the need to destroy it, but he has for too long been saying that “climate change” is the most serious challenge the world is facing.

The U.S. has a full range of enemies such as Iran which since 1979 has declared the U.S. its enemy and continues a program to make its own nuclear weapons. Additional challenges include Russia’s actions in Russia in the Ukraine and China’s military power.

In July, Rowan Scarborough, a Washington Times columnist, warned that “An independent panel appointed by the Pentagon and Congress said that President Obama’s strategy for sizing the armed services is too weak for today’s global threats.” The National Defense Panel called on the President to “dump a major section of his 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review and write a broader strategy that requires the military to fight on multiple fronts at once.” That alone would require a larger military than we have now; one that is the size it was prior to World War Two!

How stupid is the Obama-Kerry climate change policy? In June, The Washington Times reported that “Some critics say such alarmist reports are causing the Pentagon to shift money that could be used for weapons and readiness. It is making big investments in biofuels, for example, and is working climate change into high-level strategic planning.”
The article quoted Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, as saying “The president’s misguided priorities with our national security can be seen in the $1 trillion defense cuts he has put into motion since taking office and then using the limited defense budget to support his green agenda.” Everything the President has said about climate change has been a lie.

President Obama has taken steps to open the military to homosexuals, a practice that was avoided for most of the nation’s history because of its effect on morale and he has advocated women in combat units in the name of “diversity.”

Questioned about it in 2013, Gen. Martin Dempsey, Joint Chiefs Chairman, referred to the requirement to introduce a “critical mass” or “significant cadre” of women into previously all-male units. Wars are not won by diversity. They are won by men who meet the physical standards and requirements of combat.

In May, The Washington Times reported that “These days, the U.S. military is only taking twenty percent of the applicants who walk into their local recruiter’s office intent on enlisting in the armed forces” noting that “the tough environment for potential recruits is due in large part to troop reductions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Pentagon’s plans to cut the size of the active duty Army.” Cut the size? At a time when we may need “boots on the ground” again in Iraq and a possible incursion into Syria?

Whether it is weapons systems needed by the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard, the Obama administration has waged its own war on America’s capacity to meet the needs of our national security currently and in the years ahead. It has waged an effort to alter the makeup of our military personnel, to reduce portions of it, and to eliminate many top officers to lead it.

It isn’t just the Islamic State’s American hostages that are being decapitated. It is the U.S. military.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Never mind ISIS, Pentagon focusing on letting transgenders serve [VIDEO]

Let me see, ISIS just beheaded an American citizen and is committing genocide against Christians and religious minorities. Ukraine has captured Russian soldiers in its country. Israel is engaged in a conflagration against Hamas and has recently endured rockets fired from Hezbollah in the north. We have a porous southern border and tens of thousands of illegal aliens have been dispersed all over our country. No one is talking about Iran anymore, and its economic sanctions are eased. We just found out that an American, Douglas MacArthur McCain, who grew up in Minnesota was killed in Syria — fighting for ISIS.

And with all that, what is the national security focus of the Pentagon and the Obama administration? Transgendered soldiers.

As reported by the Washington Examiner, “Having already lifted the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays in the military, the Pentagon “likely will” allow transgendered Americans to serve openly in the military where 15,500 now secretly serve, according to a new report issued by top former generals.”

“Three of the top brass, endorsing the deployment of transgendered troops, also said their effort has the support of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and President Obama. In a statement accompanying the 29-page report issued Tuesday, they said, “Our conclusion is that allowing transgender personnel to serve openly is administratively feasible and will not be burdensome or complicated. Three months have passed since Defense Secretary Hagel announced a willingness to review the military’s ban on transgender service, an effort the White House indicated it supports.”

Unlike the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban repealed by Congress, the transgender ban falls “under the authority and jurisdiction of the president and secretary of defense,” said the “Report of the Planning Commission on Transgender Military Service” published by the Palm Center, an arm of San Francisco State University.

Fundamental transformation, social egalitarianism, and social justice — those are the critical national security imperatives for this administration. We are handing out pink slips to combat leaders — as we highlighted here, in the plight of one Army Major at Ft. Leavenworth — but this is of far more vital interest, apparently.

Endorsing the policy change are retired Maj. Gen. Gale S. Pollock, former acting surgeon general of the Army; Brig. Gen. Clara Adams-Ender, former chief of the U.S. Army Nurse Corps; and Brig. Gen. Thomas A. Kolditz, a Yale University professor and professor emeritus at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, where he led the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership. Hmm, I wonder if any frontline combat leaders were consulted?

The Examiner says, “transgendered Americans don’t see themselves as the sex they were born with and sometimes undergo hormone treatment or sex change surgery. The report suggested that the military allow those in the military who feel that way to get the medical care they need.”

So does this mean Defense Department healthcare dollars will go to pay for this treatment — meaning U.S. taxpayer dollars? And I thought we were overburdening the defense healthcare system? There are already rumors that imprisoned Army soldier Bradley “Chelsea” Manning will be allowed to undergo hormonal treatment paid for by the Army. And once folks make the change, I suppose the Pentagon should follow the British model in letting transgenders wear the gender-appropriate uniform in which they feel most comfortable.

In 2004 I retired from 22 years of active duty service in the U.S. Army — ten years ago this month — perhaps God knew what was best.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.