Posts Tagged ‘casualties’

Israel Accused Of ‘Disproportionality’ By Wicked World. This Is What Israel Would Do IF They Were Really ‘Proportional’ Fighting Hamas

August 7, 2014

I am beyond sick of the morally idiotic and intellectually disgraceful charge that Israel is somehow in the wrong in its fight to defend itself and its people against a DELCARED TERRORIST ENTITTY.

Israel is being accused being “disproportionate.”  Why?  Because Hamas wants its own people murdered and has found a way – by firing thousands of rockets at Israel, by using concrete that Israel gave Hamas to build homes to instead build dozens of tunnels located directly underneath hospitals, schools, mosques and crowded apartment buildings, by using their own people as human shields, by demanding that civilians sacrifice themselves and become martyrs when Israel warns them that an attack is coming while the terrorists who give the orders run away – to secure the deaths of their own people so they can blame Israel in their propaganda.

Here is what Israel would do if they were to actually BE “proportional” in their war with Muslim jihadist Hamas:

1) Israel would amend it’s constitution to include the following:

‘Palestine will exist and will  continue to exist until Israel will obliterate it.’

That would of course be “proportional to the Hamas Charter which says in its preamble:

‘Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.’

If Israel were “proportional” they would also have the equivalent of this part of Hamas’ charter –

‘[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the  principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement… Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam… There is no solution for the Palestinian problem  except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.’ (Article 13)

– and so renounce any and all attempt at peace and give themselves the right to violate any true or peace accord whenever they wanted.

Israel would amend its constitution to include something “proportional” to what Hamas says in its charter:

‘The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’ (Article 7)

So let’s reword that into a “proportional” statement that would become official Israeli policy in a “proportional” Israel:

“The Day of Judgment will not come about until Jews fight Muslims and kill them.  Then, the Muslims will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Jew, there is a Muslim hiding behind me, come and kill him.”

If Israel truly sought “proportionality,” they would add racism to the mixture by labeling Muslims as the descendants of apes and pigs.  and they would teach that dogma to every single Israeli school child the way the Palestinians indoctrinate every Muslim school child in order to guarantee that the hatred will last until every single Muslim on earth is dead.

THAT’S what a “proportional” Israel would actually look like.

Oh, and United Nations “proportionality” would be to help Israel indoctrinate its children to religious and racial hate the way UNRA is helping to indoctrinate Palestinian children to religious and racial hate.

That’s how EVIL the United Nations is today. fwiw.

If you want a “proportional” Israel, you United Nations demoniac, then you demand that Israel amend their constitution to call for the murder of every single Muslim the way Hamas has done to Jews in its charter.  Otherwise, kindly shut the hell up and realize that you are a sick, twisted, evil, diseased soul that belongs to the devil for your calls for “proportionality.”

2) A proportional Israel would have fired over 3,000 rockets into Palestinian areas and indiscriminately killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of Muslims.  And if Hamas hadn’t spent billions of dollars trying to defend their citizens against Israeli rocket attacks the way Israel spent billions defending themselves against Palestinian rocket attacks, that would just be too damn bad, would it?

I wouldn’t be surprised if a “proportional” Israel would have killed a million Palestinians by now.

If you truly demand a “proportional” Israel and you are NOT a demon-possessed hypocrite cockroach, then you have called for Israel to send at least 3,000 rockets into Palestinian civilian-populated areas.

But you ARE a demon-possessed hypocrite cockroach, aren’t you, United Nations???

3) A “proportional” Israel would use humanitarian aid sites such as Temples, schools and hospitals to locate weapons and dig tunnels with which they could enter Palestinian territory and murder and kidnap Palestinians.  Because that would be the obviously “proportional” thing for Israel to do, wouldn’t it???  At least unless you are so completely demon-possessed you don’t have a freaking clue what the real world actually looks like, it would be.

I pointed out in a recent article how the fact that the world condemns Israel for doing what it absolutely MUST against the most wicked terrorist entity on earth proves that there is a personal devil.  I said that because God created men and women in His own image and He simply did not make us to be this stupid, this blind and this depraved to be so incapable of so much as a shred of moral intelligence.

There has to be a Satan and an army of demons to blind wicked fools such that they cannot see what is OBVIOUS to any soul created by God.  Humanity simply cannot be this STUPID and EVIL on their own.

Satan is alive and well, and the United Nations and the existence of liberals proves it.

 

 

Not With A Bang But A Whimper: LA Times Admits That Obama’s (And Hillary Clinton’s) Intervention In Libya Was A MAJOR Disaster

June 27, 2014

We hear all the time from liberals that George W. Bush broke the law when he attacked Iraq and that Bush turned Iraq into a hellhole with his warmongering.

It’s time to point out a few things.

Number one, no, Bush DIDN’T break the law when he attacked Iraq; he actually passed “the Iraq War Resolution” that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Kerry, etc. voted for.  And when George Bush attacked Iraq, he did what nearly sixty percent of the Democrats in the US Senate authorized him to do.  And number two, when George Bush LEFT Iraq, he left a safe, stable region that prompted Joe Biden to say:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

… and for Barack Obama to boast in 2011:

“This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

and:

“[W]e will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe haven to terrorists.”

Bush left behind a safe, stable Iraq.  And all Barack Obama had to do was keep a small US force there to keep safe and stable what we had fought to make safe and stable.  Obama failed as only the worst kind of FOOL can fail by ignoring his top general’s urgent warnings and pleas to keep a force in Iraq:

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Do you want to know who broke the law and then left a ruined country that is completely going to pot now?

Barry Hussein Obama, that’s who.  Even the fool’s own damn LAWYERS told him that what he was doing was illegal and criminal.  But the thug in chief was above the law.

Obama’s reckless action in Libya prompted even a DEMOCRAT to say this about false messiah Obama:

Representative Lynn Woolsey charged the President of showing “contempt” for the Constitution, and insulting the intelligence of the American people.  Woolsey made the following statement: “The Obama Administration’s argument is one that shows contempt for the Constitution and for the executive’s co-equal branch of government, the United States Congress.  To say that our aggressive bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of ‘hostilities’ flies in the face of common sense and is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.  This act must not stand, because we can’t afford another full-blown war—the ones we’re already fighting are bankrupting us morally and fiscally.  Let those who support the military campaign against Libya make their case, in an open debate culminating with a vote in the U.S. Congress.  The American people deserve nothing less.”

And yes, the criminal fascist thug Obama DID what he ACCUSED George Bush of doing when he attacked Libya without bothering to get ANY Congressional approval:

Senator Obama, taking a cheap shot at then-President Bush:

Barack Obama: “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,” Obama responded.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

Do you remember being attacked by Libya?  Did the Libyans invade us?  I mean, maybe I was just asleep when it happened or something.  Otherwise, Barack Obama ought to be impeached, and the single witness against him should be … Barack Obama.  Barack Obama trampled all over the Constitution according to none other than … that’s right, Barack Obama.

George Bush got Congress’ approval before BOTH of his attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

And not only did Obama’s adventure in Libya NOT have the approval of Congress, but it also has less approval than ANY US military action in the last four decades going back to Vietnam.

And just what in the hell made our Idiot-in-Chief decide to be the first president in the sorry history of Gaddafi’s forty-plus years of abusing his own people to shake hands with the monster?

Do you see what a meandering idiot this guy is?

So having just taken that trip down memory lane, let’s see what the uberliberal leftist snot rag the Los Angeles Times has to say about the hellhole that Libya has become under Obama’s hypocritical and incompetent watch:

U.S. intervention in Libya now seen as cautionary tale
By Paul Richter,  Christi Parsons
June 27, 2014, 4:00 AM|Reporting from Washington

  • SHARELINES
    3 years after U.S. military intervention, Libya has become what U.S. officials dread most
    As the U.S. considers a limited intervention in Iraq, the experience in Libya is seen as a cautionary tale
    More than 50,000 people, including refugee and migrants, have flooded to Europe through Libya’s porous borders

A group of U.S. diplomats arrived in Libya three years ago to a memorable reception: a throng of cheering men and women who pressed in on the startled group “just to touch us and thank us,” recalled Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security advisor.

The Libyans were emotional because the U.S. and its allies had toppled leader Moammar Kadafi in a military campaign that averted a feared slaughter of Kadafi’s foes. Obama administration officials called the international effort, accomplished with no Western casualties, a “model intervention.”

But in three years Libya has turned into the kind of place U.S. officials most fear: a lawless land that attracts terrorists, pumps out illegal arms and drugs and destabilizes its neighbors.

Now, as Obama considers a limited military intervention in Iraq, the Libya experience is seen by many as a cautionary tale of the unintended damage big powers can inflict when they aim for a limited involvement in an unpredictable conflict.

“If Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of overkill and overreach, Libya is the reverse case, where you do too little and get an unacceptable result,” said Brian Katulis, a Middle East specialist at the Center for American Progress, a think tank. “The lesson is that a low tolerance of risk can have its costs.”

Though they succeeded in their military effort, the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies fell short in the broader goal of putting Libya on a path toward democracy and stability. Exhausted after a decade of war and mindful of the failures in Iraq, U.S. officials didn’t want to embark on another nation-building effort in an oil-rich country that seemed to pose no threat to Western security.

But by limiting efforts to help the new Libyan government gain control over the country, critics say, the U.S. and its allies have inadvertently helped turn Libya into a higher security threat than it was before the military intervention.

Libya has become North Africa’s most active militant sanctuary, at the center of the resurgent threat that Obama warned about in a May address at West Point. A 2012 terrorist attack against the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

Arms trafficking from Libya “is fueling conflict and insecurity — including terrorism — on several continents,” an expert panel reported to the United Nations Security Council in February. Weapons smuggled out of Libya have been used by insurgents in Mali, by Boko Haram terrorists in Nigeria and by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.

More than 50,000 people, including refugees from Syria and migrants from North Africa, have flooded into Europe through Libya’s porous borders, sharpening the continent’s immigration crisis.

The latest U.S. State Department travel warning portrays Libya as a society in near-collapse, beset by crime, terrorism, factional fighting, government failure and the wide availability of portable antiaircraft weapons that can shoot down commercial airplanes.

U.S. officials, now scrambling to reverse Libya’s downward spiral, say blame rests with the Libyans who took control of a country that has proved more dysfunctional than expected.

[…]

Some observers are warning that the administration eventually may be forced to do more. A Rand Corp. report this spring predicted that if Libya’s problems continue to worsen, another NATO intervention might be required.

“Libya is a lesson about the risks,” said Robert Danin, a longtime U.S. diplomat in the Middle East who warned about the risks of ensuing chaos. “With nation-building in disrepute, there’s a tendency now to want to declare victory and move on. But interventions can’t be done neatly.”

Here’s the money quote:

“If Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of overkill and overreach, Libya is the reverse case, where you do too little and get an unacceptable result,” said Brian Katulis, a Middle East specialist at the Center for American Progress, a think tank. “The lesson is that a low tolerance of risk can have its costs.”

That’s precisely what Obama did across the Middle East: he declared victory and moved on.  It’s what he did in Iraq in spite of the fact that he refused to deploy ANY security force whatsoever; it’s what he did in Libya after he bombed the country into rioting and terrorism that led to the Benghazi debacle and Obama’s cover-up of that debacle; it’s what he did in Syria after his weakness-personified “red line” and his deal with Putin that secured Assad’s power-grip and ultimately led to the rise of ISIS that is owning Obama right now.  Again and again, Obama declared victory and moved on, having done little or nothing.  He assured us that al Qaeda – which is now larger, more powerful, wealthier and controls more territory than EVER in it’s history – was “decimated” and “on the run.”  But they WEREN’T running; they were running their FLAG up over OUR embassies!!!  And Obama declared that ISIS was “JV” and that just because they dressed up in Laker’s uniforms didn’t make them Kobe Bryant.  When we can now see that it’s OBAMA who is “JV” and ISIS is looking like Kobe Bryant at the very top of his game in comparison to anything our weak president is doing.

Obama lied to you, America: you can’t eat your cake and have it, too.  We either fight to win or we lose and ultimately we die.  Those are out choices.

Whether in Iraq, or Libya, or anywhere ELSE you want to name, “worst-case scenario” is now becoming the normal state of affairs under this spectacularly failed presidency.

The point is this: Bush went on the offensive and there are those who argue that he failed.  Mind you, Bush left office with a JUST A SMALL FRACTION OF THE FORCE that Obama escalated Afghanistan into and was responsible for about a fifth of the casualties suffered in Afghanistan and HE WON IN IRAQ UNTIL OBAMA PISSED VICTORY AWAY (see also here and here).  And here for what I predicted back in 2011.

Obama’s “red line” fiasco turned into a bloodbath in Syria.  Obama’s complete withdrawal from and abandonment of Iraq turned into the largest terrorist caliphate the world has ever seen.  And it will be coming at us soon because they’ve SAID it would be coming:

[The United States] intercepted a letter written from Al-Zawahiri to the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The letter described four stages that they would engage in: drive the Americans out, establish a caliphate in Bahgdad, use that base to attack other countries, attack Israel.

And as Obama has – as a result of his “policy” – utterly abandoned the Middle East to chaos and terrorism and murder – it is now obvious that Obama has failed FAR WORSE than Bush or any other president who ever lived.

Did you notice that Susan Rice was there again, she who is Obama’s top liar of choice first in Benghazi and more recently in the Bowe Bergdahl trade-your-soul and your five captured terrorist generals for a worthless turd deal???

I also can’t help but laugh that the same damn fool president who caused such a humanitarian crisis in Libya has also caused a similar one on our very own border with his ridiculously failed morally idiotic policies.

Somehow I remember the mainstream media propaganda that is our “journalism” today going ape poop over the Bush administration prediction that “we’ll be greeted as liberators” line.  But where have they been in the three years since Obama’s reckless, criminal and incompetent action in Libya broke down all civilized structures in Libya?  NOWHERE.  Because if you’re a reporter today, you view yourself as serving your messiah Obama and the Ultimate Cause of liberalism and secular humanism.  And you are willing to lie for your god and for your cause because you believe the ends justify the means.

George Bush essentially won the Iraq War in 21 days.  That’s how long it took for the air power to cripple Iraq’s ability to wage war and for US troops to largely secure the most vital parts of the country.  The rest of it was the attempt to “build and hold.”  Obama didn’t bother with that in Libya.  Hell, he didn’t even bother with it in Iraq.  As Jonah Goldberg pointed out:

Hillary Clinton has defined leadership in a democracy as a relay race: “You run the best race you can run; you hand off the baton.” Obama was handed a baton he didn’t want, so he dropped it.

Which is to say that even by Hillary Clinton’s standard, Barack Obama was a complete, unmitigated FAILURE who screwed America horribly in Iraq.  Obama lost what had been won at great cost because he didn’t like the baton he was held and threw it away like it was a piece of trash even as he claimed credit for the victory that he was about to piss away with his abject fool stupidity.

When you secure something, you stay there to make sure it STAYS secured.  That’s one of the great lessons that we learned in Vietnam.  We would take a hill at bloody cost, like “Hamburger Hill, and then withdraw a day after we took it to allow the communists to occupy it all over again.  We learned not to do that by paying a terrible price for our stupidity.  Only to have Barack Obama UN-learn it for us so we get Vietnam all over again.

At this point I submit that there is only one thing left to try regarding the Middle East: the World War II strategy.

In World War II we did not concern ourselves with “collateral damage.”  If you were a civilian and you were sitting on a Nazi tank, too damn bad for you.

We FIREBOMBED Dresden.  We killed something like 135,000 people.

We FIREBOMBED Tokyo.  We killed about 100,000 people – nearly as many as both the two atomic bombs combined did.

We were able to do that because we were a people who had something to live for, something to fight for, and therefore something to kill our enemies for.

We HAVE to respond to terrorist attacks.  And frankly at the same time, we’re simply not prepared any more – for various reasons including sheer exhaustion – to conquer, hold and rebuild.

All that is left is to bomb the populations that allow terrorism to fester into the stone age.  And if they start to get nasty again, bomb the rubble into smaller particles of rubble.  And DON’T GO IN.  LEAVE THEM to the consequences of their evil ideology.

Turn Afghanistan into “Lake Afghanistan” if that is what it takes to end the scourge of Islamic violence.  Because at this point, if these people are going to act like cockroaches, they need to be STOMPED like cockroaches.  And we don’t need to send in troops as long as we’ve got a big enough fly swatter from the air and our naval platforms out at sea.

I truly believe that if the message – the clear, consistent message regardless of president or party – was, “If you threaten us or our interests, we will bring the fire of hell to you, to your women and to your children,” terrorism would become a lot less popular.  All these Muslims would have to see is that yes, we DO mean business and we mean it in a very painful way.  But as it is now, there is no down-side to fostering terrorism whatsoever.  We do these precise, surgical strikes to avoid actually hurting anybody.  And all our enemies have to do is put a hand-lettered sign that reads “Baby milk factory” and our destruction of a weapons-of-mass-destruction facility becomes a war crime:

One of [CNN reporter Peter] Arnett’s most controversial reports during the Gulf War was a report on how the coalition had bombed a baby milk factory. Shortly after the report, an Air Force spokesman stated “Numerous sources have indicated that [the factory] is associated with biological warfare production”. Later the same day, Colin Powell stated “It was a biological weapons facility, of that we are sure”. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater stated “That factory is, in fact, a production facility for biological weapons” and “The Iraqis have hidden this facility behind a façade of baby-milk production as a form of disinformation.”

The image of a crudely made hand-painted sign reading “Baby Milk” in English and Arabic in front of the factory, and a lab coat dressed in a suit containing stitched lettering reading “BABY MILK PLANT IRAQ” only served to further the perception that purportedly civilian targets were simply being made to look like that by Saddam Hussein, and that Arnett was duped by the Iraqi government. The sign appeared to have been added by the Iraqis before the camera crews arrived as a cheap publicity ploy. Newsweek called the incident a “ham-handed attempt to depict a bombed-out biological-weapons plant near Baghdad as a baby-formula factory.”

Arnett remained firm. He had toured the plant in the previous August, and was insistent that “Whatever else it did, it did produce infant formula”. Described as being a veritable fortress by the Pentagon[citation needed], the plant, Arnett reported, had only one guard at the gate and a lot of powdered baby milk. “That’s as much as I could tell you about it … [I]t looked innocent enough from what we could see.” A CNN camera crew had been invited to tour this plant in August 1990. They videotaped workers wearing new uniforms with lettering in English reading, “Iraq Baby Milk Plant”.

If we’re not going to fight back – and fight back like we really mean it – we truly deserve to die.

I mean, my God, you pathetic, apathetic coward herd animals, just bleat until you die like the sheep you are.

Here’s another thing: the terrorists ARE fighting for a cause that they believe is very much worth dying for.  Versus us: what the hell are WE fighting for?  Are we fighting for Obama?  Are we fighting for political correctness?  Are we fighting for the determination to not allow God or any transcendent cause whatsoever to interfere with our abortion and our homosexual sodomy???

If I had a son, I would urge him with all the passion I had not to waste his life for this country at this point.  I served, as did my father, my father, my grandfather and my grandfather’s father before me.  But we served a very different nation which did not piss in the Eye of God.

We are losing the war on terror because secular humanist liberals like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have eradicated ANY reason whatsoever to actually fight for our own worthless lives – and if you believe in abortion your life is worthless by definition because you acknowledge that you began as the kind of thing that could have and even SHOULD HAVE been killed as a parasite or a disease – and our own worthless values.

We need to either figure out what it is that is worth fighting for in our age of secular humanism or we need to go out “not with a bang but a whimper” as the T.S. Elliot poem predicted we would.

Because in the age of Obama, a whimper is about all we’ve got.

Obama’s policy of inaction, of too-little-action-way-too-late, of bogus “red lines,” of retreat, of withdrawal, of apologizing, of weakening America and broadcasting the message of weakness to the world, has resulted in the world erupting into a firestorm that we now cannot put out with our meaningless and frankly depraved values.

Our own pathetic secular humanist values have been used against us and turned into a weapon of our own mass destruction.  We COULD fight, but as morally insane secular humanists we put on a strait jacket – and now we’re helpless while our rabid enemies are coming at us with the passion that comes from having a powerful cause that we long-since abandoned as a post-Christian culture.

And that’s why Armageddon is coming.

 

Why Fighting For Our Country Under Obama Is Different Than Any Other Time – Except Maybe Vietnam

July 5, 2010

Fighting a war under the command of Barack Obama is very different than fighting under the command of any president who has ever come before.  Up until president #44, commanders-in-chief actually had some degree of trust in the soldiers under their command.  They put them into battle for one reason, summed up by President Ronald Reagan’s statement: “We win, they lose.”  They sent them with commonsensical rules for civilized warfare, and then they gave them the mandate to go out and win.  Today we have a commander-in-chief who would prefer not to talk about actually winning:

I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.”

In order to avoid the potential for some kind of awkward “victory,” our soldiers and Marines are literally unable to shoot when every element of common sense and the entire history of warfare tell them to shoot:

Troops: Strict war rules slow Marjah offensive
By Alfred de Montesquiou and Deb Riechmann – The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Feb 15, 2010 15:08:51 EST

MARJAH, Afghanistan — Some American and Afghan troops say they’re fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.

“I understand the reason behind it, but it’s so hard to fight a war like this,” said Marine Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, 20, of Altoona, Iowa. “They’re using our rules of engagement against us,” he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.

If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon — or if they did not personally watch him drop one.

What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can’t count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.

“This is difficult,” Lance Cpl. Michael Andrejczuk, 20, of Knoxville, Tenn., said Monday. “We are trained like when we see something, we obliterate it. But here, we have to see them and when we do, they don’t have guns.”

That mindset doesn’t just apply to our fighting men on the ground, who are put in a position in which they can’t defend themselves if their enemy flouts Obama’s miserable rules of engagement.  The pilots flying overhead and the artillerymen on surrounding positions are prevented from supporting our soldiers if they get pinned down, too:

Family calls U.S. military goals ‘fuzzy’
Parents of soldier killed last week criticize firepower restrictions

By DENNIS YUSKO, Staff writer
First published in print: Thursday, June 24, 2010

QUEENSBURY — The parents of a Lake George soldier killed in Afghanistan attacked the Obama administration Wednesday for “flower children leadership,” and said they would work to change U.S. rules of military engagement in the nine-year conflict.

Hours before holding a wake for their 27-year-old son in Glens Falls, Bill and Beverly Osborn heavily criticized a military policy implemented last year that places some restrictions on when American troops can use firepower in Afghanistan. The new rules were set when Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal assumed command of the Afghanistan effort, and have reportedly made it harder for troops to call in for or initiate air power, artillery and mortars against the Taliban.

The counterinsurgency policy is intended to reduce civilian casualties and win the allegiance of Afghans, McChrystal had said. But echoing criticisms from the Vietnam era, Bill Osborn said Wednesday that it’s tied the hands of service members on the ground.

“We send our young men and women to spill their blood and we won’t let them do their job,” he said from his Queensbury home. “Winning hearts and minds is wonderful, but first we have to defeat the enemy.”

And then we wonder why Obama doubled the American body count from Bush in 2009, and is now on pace to double his own total (which means four times the Bush 2008 Americans KIA).

We just suffered the highest number of American causalities for a single month in the history of the war.  Mind you, EVERY month becomes the new “deadliest month” under Obama.

From icasualties.org:

For those who are historically ignorant, America firebombed Tokyo and Dresden in World War II.  We didn’t make sure that every single person who could possibly get killed during an attack was a 100%-confirmed “militant” before we sent a wave of death at our enemies.  If we’d resorted to that form of liberal moral stupidity, we would have lost – and the only question would have been how many of us would have ended up speaking German, and how many of us would have ended up speaking Japanese.

Thank God we didn’t have Obama leading us back then.

But our rules of engagement still weren’t getting enough American soldiers killed, so Team Obama came up with a better idea: how about ordering soldiers to go into battle with unloaded weapons? That’s right. Soldiers are now told to wait until they actually start falling down on the ground dead before they can actually be allowed to fumble a round into the chamber.

Fighting a War without Bullets?
by  Chris Carter
05/25/2010

Commanders have ordered a U.S. military unit in Afghanistan to patrol with unloaded weapons, according to a source in Afghanistan.

American soldiers in at least one unit have been ordered to conduct patrols without a round chambered in their weapons, an anonymous source stationed at a forward operating base in Afghanistan said in an interview. The source was unsure where the order originated or how many other units were affected.

When a weapon has a loaded magazine, but the safety is on and no round is chambered, the military refers to this condition as “amber status.” Weapons on “red status” are ready to fire—they have a round in the chamber and the safety is off.

The source stated that he had been stationed at the base for only a month, but the amber weapons order was in place since before he arrived. A NATO spokesman could not confirm the information, stating that levels of force are classified.

In other words, our guys can’t prepare their weapons to actually fire until they are already under attack.

Imagine sending our police into a building filled with armed gang members like that.

And you want to know how to win a medal in Obama’s army? Don’t do anything. Certainly don’t actually shoot at the enemy.

Hold fire, earn a medal
By William H. McMichael – Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 12, 2010 15:51:31 EDT

U.S. troops in Afghanistan could soon be awarded a medal for not doing something, a precedent-setting award that would be given for “courageous restraint” for holding fire to save civilian lives.

The proposal is now circulating in the Kabul headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force, a command spokesman confirmed Tuesday.

“The idea is consistent with our approach,” explained Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis. “Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. In some situations our forces face in Afghanistan, that restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions.”

Soldiers are often recognized for non-combat achievement with decorations such as their service’s commendation medal. But most of the highest U.S. military decorations are for valor in combat. A medal to recognize a conscious effort to avoid a combat action would be unique.

It used to be that the hero was the guy who took on the enemy. Now it’s the guy who crawls into the fetal position and walks away from a battle with an unfired weapon.

We can only wonder what Obama’s version of Audie Murphy will look like.

And Iran sure doesn’t have to worry about Obama shooting at them as they develop their nuclear arsenal so they can cause Armageddon.

About the only thing regarding the military Obama is actually determined to fight for is gay rights. You can bet that the same political weasels who won’t let our soldiers actually shoot at the enemy will fight tooth and nail for the right of homosexual soldiers to be able to buttrape their buddies. Because we don’t have nearly enough gay rape in the military. That’s going to be the new meaning to “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Don’t tell, because that homosexual is the new protected class.

And if all of the above doesn’t beat all, you probably don’t want to hear about the fact that Obama’s timetable for a cut-and-run had nothing whatsoever about satisfying military issues and everything about satisfying political ones within Obama’s radical leftwing base.  The military wasn’t even consulted, according to General David Petraeus:

McCain: “General, at any time during the deliberations that the military shared with the President when he went through the decision-making process, was there a recommendation from you or anyone in the military that we set a date of July 2011?”

Petraeus: “Uh, there was not.”

McCain: “There was not – by any military person that you know of?”

Petraeus: “Not that I’m aware of.”

Nobody knows what the hell is going on over there.  Are we going to stay and fight?  Or cut and run?  Most of the Obama administration is saying that we are most definitely going to cut and run in July 2011.  Take Vice President Biden, who says, “In July of 2011 you’re going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it.”  All Obama will say is that “We didn’t say we’d be switching off the lights and closing the door behind us.” which isn’t really saying anything.

All the money is on a pullout, as Obama cuts and runs.  The Afghan people know that, know that the Taliban will soon be their landlords, and aren’t about to risk any kind of meaningful alliance with America that would be necessary to actually winning over there.

Do you remember FDR telling Churchill, “I’ll give you a year, and then we’re running with our tail between our legs where it belongs”???

If it’s a war worth fighting, it is a war worth sticking around to fight.

We will win when we allow our fighting men to fight.  And not until then.

If you wonder whether Afghanistan is going to become like Vietnam, stop wondering: it already has.  Because we’re fighting Afghanistan the same way we fought Vietnam – with the mindset of putting our troops in danger while simultaneously preventing them from securing victory.

Obama Massively Failing In Afghanistan

June 22, 2010

This is nothing more than an effort to hold Obama accountable to the very same standards he used to demonize George Bush in Iraq:

Afghanistan violence is soaring, U.N. says
Afghanistan is increasingly dangerous for troops and civilians alike, a report says, citing an ‘alarming’ 94% increase in bomb attacks in the first four months of 2010, compared with last year.

By Laura King, Los Angeles Times
June 20, 2010
Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan

Afghanistan has become a far more dangerous place for Western troops and Afghan civilians alike, with an increase in suicide attacks, roadside bombings and political assassinations in the first four months of 2010, the United Nations said in a report released Saturday.

The gloomy assessment comes on the heels of congressional testimony last week by senior U.S. military officials who acknowledged that efforts to stabilize Afghanistan’s volatile south are proving more complex and time-consuming than anticipated.

With the U.S. troop numbers in the country approaching the 100,000 mark, the Western military toll has been rising sharply as the summer “fighting season” unfolds. More than 1,000 U.S. service members have died in the nearly 9-year-old conflict.

“There has been a great deal of ‘kinetic activity'” as Western and Afghan forces confront insurgents in the south, German army Brig. Gen. Josef Blotz, a spokesman for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s International Security Assistance Force, told reporters Saturday in Kabul, the capital. That is the term the military uses to describe battlefield clashes.

The U.N. report, submitted by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to the Security Council and released by the world body’s mission in Afghanistan, notes a near-doubling in the number of attacks involving roadside bombs.

It describes an “alarming” 94% increase in bomb attacks from the same January-April period a year earlier. Roadside bombs planted by the Taliban and other insurgents are generally aimed at foreign troops, but because they are planted on routes used by everyone, they kill and maim many civilians as well.

The report also cites an average of three suicide bombings a week across Afghanistan, a growing number of them attacks involving more than one assailant, sometimes in combination with use of rockets, mortars and gunfire.

Targeted killings of Afghan officials had increased by 45%, the report says, with most taking place in the south, where the insurgency is strongest. The killings tend to target locally influential figures, such as tribal elders and other dignitaries who might be able to rally villagers and townspeople to resist the Taliban.

In one recent example, the district governor in Arghandab, a strategic gateway to the city of Kandahar, was killed in an insurgent bombing. NATO had touted the district as an area in which headway was being made in winning over the populace and improving security

Western officials have been describing their own campaign in the south as a combined political and military effort, and systematic assassinations appear aimed at sapping the will of local officials and others seen as cooperating with foreign forces or the Afghan government.

The U.N. report takes a more hopeful tone about some recent political developments, including nascent efforts by the government of President Hamid Karzai to woo Taliban foot soldiers away from the fight.

It notes, though, that “in general, the Taliban have reacted negatively to peace and reconciliation.”

Let’s reflect on this disastrous report, in light of Obama’s demonization and demagoguery of George Bush’s successful attempt to prevail in Iraq.

Obama attacked and undermined Bush’s incredibly successful troop surge:

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he told MSNBC. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

And then recently tried to take credit for it’s magnificent success via his Vice President:

On Larry King Live last night, Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq “could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

Obama is the consummate demagogue who demonized Bush in Afghanistan by claiming:

“We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”

Condemn him as a failure and a disgrace according to his own demagogic standard.  He demonized Bush, when Bush succeeded.  How much more should we demonize Obama, as he’s utterly failing???

But this is worse than merely a failure of leadership.  Far worse.

Charles Krauthammer pointed out the sheer cynical depravity of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party as regards Iraq and Afghanistan by pointing to what the Democrats themselves said:

Bob Shrum, who was a high political operative who worked on the Kerry campaign in ’04, wrote a very interesting article in December of last year in which he talked about that campaign, and he said, at the time, the Democrats raised the issue of Afghanistan — and they made it into “the right war” and “the good war” as a way to attack Bush on Iraq.  In retrospect, he writes, that it was, perhaps, he said, misleading. Certainly it was not very wise.

What he really meant to say — or at least I would interpret it — it was utterly cynical. In other words, he’s confessing, in a way, that the Democrats never really supported the Afghan war. It was simply a club with which to bash the [Bush] administration on the Iraq war and pretend that Democrats aren’t anti-war in general, just against the wrong war.

Well, now they are in power, and they are trapped in a box as a result of that, pretending [when] in opposition that Afghanistan is the good war, the war you have to win, the central war in the war on terror. And obviously [they are] now not terribly interested in it, but stuck.

And that’s why Obama has this dilemma. He said explicitly on ABC a few weeks ago that he wouldn’t even use the word “victory” in conjunction with Afghanistan.

And Democrats in Congress have said: If you don’t win this in one year, we’re out of here. He can’t win the war in a year. Everybody knows that, which means he [Obama] has no way out.

Afghanistan was just a way to demagogue Bush in Iraq by describing Afghanistan – where Obama is failing so badly – as “the good war” and Iraq – where Bush won so triumphantly – as “the bad war.”  It was beyond cynical; it was flat-out treasonous.

George Bush selected Iraq as his central front for sound strategic reason.  Iraq had a despotic tyrant who supported terrorism.  Saddam Hussein needed to be removed to mount any kind of successful peace effort in the Middle East.  Iraq is located in the heart of the Arab/Islamic world.  It has an educated population relative to the rest of the region.  It also offered precisely the type of terrain that would allow American forces to implement their massive military superiority in a way that mountainous, cave-ridden Afghanistan would not.

Bush was determined to fight a war where he could win.  Obama foolishly trapped us in a war that would bleed us.  Why?  For no other reason than pure political demagoguery.  And he needs to be held accountable.

And where are we now under Obama’s failed leadership???

An article entitled, “Pentagon worried about Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan” ended with this assessment from a senior Pentagon official:

“I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier.  We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war.”

See my piece from last year predicting this failure.  Read that article and explain to me where I was wrong, liberals.  I dare you.

American casualties under Obama in 2009 more than doubled compared to the total in 2008 when Bush was commander-in-chief.  And they are set to more than double this year compared to 2009.

From iCasualties, accessed June 21, 2010:

We’re paying attention to Obama’s massive, massive failure of leadership in the Gulf Coast.  That’s all well and good.  But don’t forget Obama’s massive failure of leadership in Afghanistan.

And just as we should rightly condemn Barack Obama for his demonization and demagoguery of Bush in Katrina, we should likewise condemn him for his demonization and demagoguery of Bush in Afghanistan.  We should hold Barack Hussein accountable to his own hypocritical, two-faced standards, and demand his resignation as a failure and a fraud.

Update, June 22: Heck, I wrote this yesterday, and hadn’t even published it yet when I discovered I needed to update.  Because now we now that Stanley McChrystal, commanding general in Afghanistan, thinks that Obama – and virtually every single man Obama has appointed in Afghanistan – are a bunch of clueless clowns.

McChrystal sided with his troops against his Failure-in-Chief once before.  I think he did it again to let his troops know that he understands the real problem facing them.

MSNBC has some of the highlights:

  • McChrystal has seized control of the war “by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House.”
  • One aide called White House National Security Adviser Jim Jones, a retired four star general, a “clown” who was “stuck in 1985.”
  • Obama agreed to dispatch an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan only after months of study that many in the military found frustrating. And the White House’s troop commitment was coupled with a pledge to begin bringing them home in July 2011, in what counterinsurgency strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an arbitrary deadline.
  • The article portrayed McChrystal’s team as disapproving of the Obama administration, with the exception of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who backed McCrystal’s request for additional troops in Afghanistan.
  • It quotes a member of McChrystal’s team making jokes about Biden, who was seen as critical of the general’s efforts to escalate the conflict and who had favored a more limited counter-terrorism approach. “Biden?” the aide was quoted as saying. “Did you say: Bite me?” Biden initially opposed McChrystal’s proposal for additional forces last year. He favored a narrower focus on hunting terrorists.

This, too, is another example of liberal hypocrisy.  What happened when Bush was depicted as not listening to his generals?  From the Washington Post, after Bush decided to pursue the (in hindsight) magnificently successful surge strategy:

This impulse may well expose Bush to more criticism from Democrats on Capitol Hill, who have sharply condemned him for not listening to Shinseki’s counsel in the beginning.

What’s it like to have your own fingers of demonization now pointing back at you?

Like I said, Obama is massively failing in Afghanistan.  Just like he’s massively failing everywhere else.

Update, June 26, 2010: Oh, by the way, get ready for what might be Obama’s “Abu Ghraib moment,” as videos of a mass slaughter of Afghani civilians makes its way to the public.

Some ‘Change’: Closest Ally Britain Says Obama Undermining War In Afghanistan

November 24, 2009

We’re constantly told that the world loves us again now that Barack Obama is president.

Mind you, that “love” is utterly meaningless.  We’re not benefiting in any way from all the “love” we’re supposedly receiving.

We’re certainly not getting more support for the war on terror – oops, forgot Obama says we can’t use that term anymore – I mean the “overseas contingency operation” – from our adoring allies.

Take a look at the following table available from iCasualties.org/Operation Enduring Freedom as of November 24:

In addition to the fact that our casualties under Barack Obama will easily double from 2008 when George Bush was president, there is one more important feature: the fact that, other than the U.K. our allied troop support (see “other”) has actually DECREASED under the leadership of Barack Obama.

While they’ve given token lip service praise of Barack Obama’s “wonderfulness,” they have quietly been doing even LESS to help us in Afghanistan than they were under George Bush.

And the ONLY exception to that pathetic trend is the United Kingdom.

But listen to what the United Kingdom has to say about how Barack Obama is sabotaging and undermining the mission in Afghanistan:

Bob Ainsworth criticises Barack Obama over Afghanistan

Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, has blamed Barack Obama and the United States for the decline in British public support for the war in Afghanistan.

James Kirkup, Thomas Harding and Toby Harnden
Published: 9:00PM GMT 24 Nov 2009

Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban.

A “period of hiatus” in Washington – and a lack of clear direction – had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said.

Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defence chiefs echoing the concerns.

But Mr Ainsworth is the first Government minister to express in public what amounts to personal criticism of the US president’s leadership over the conflict which has so far cost 235 British lives.

Polls show most voters now want an early withdrawal, following the death of 98 British service personnel this year alone.

Ministers say the mission is vital to stop international terrorists using Afghanistan as a base, but Gordon Brown has promised an “exit strategy” that could start next year.

The Defence Secretary’s blunt remarks about the US threaten to strain further a transatlantic relationship already under pressure over the British release of the Lockerbie bomber and Mr Obama’s decision to snub Mr Brown at the United Nations in September.

Mr Ainsworth spoke out as the inquiry into the 2003 war in Iraq started in London, hearing evidence from British diplomats that the UK government concluded in 2001 that toppling Saddam Hussein by military action would be illegal.

Mr Obama has been considering advice from General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, to send more than 40,000 extra troops to the country.

Next week, after more than three months of deliberation, the president is expected to announce that he will send around 34,000 more troops.

Mr Ainsworth, speaking to MPs at the defence committee in the House of Commons, welcomed that troop ‘surge’ decision, but lamented the time taken to reach it.

He said that the rising British death toll, the corruption of the Afghan government and the delay in Washington all hamper efforts to retain public backing for the deployment.

“We have suffered a lot of losses,” he said. “We have had a period of hiatus while McChrystal’s plan and his requested uplift has been looked at in the detail to which it has been looked at over a period of some months, and we have had the Afghan elections, which have been far from perfect let us say.

“All of those things have mitigated against our ability to show progress… put that on the other side of the scales when we are suffering the kind of losses that we are.”

Britain has 9,000 troops in Afghanistan and has announced it will send another 500, a decision some US officials saw as a move to put pressure on Mr Obama.

Mr Ainsworth said he is confident that once Mr Obama confirms his new strategy, allies will follow and British public opinion will shift back in favour of the mission.

“I hope and believe that we are about to get an announcement from the USA on troop numbers and I think that that will be followed by contributions from many other Nato allies and so we will be able to show that we are going forward in this campaign to an extent that we have not been able to in recent months with those issues still hanging,” he said. […]

So you’ve got the documented record of Barack Hussein undermining the ONLY ally that has been worth butkus – or a butt kiss, for that matter – to the United States in Afghanistan.

The repeated acts of public humiliation of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the UK at the hands of Obama and his administration are detailed HERE.

And during the three month period that Obama has dithered – and that is the Brits’ term, in addition to our own Pentagon command, rather than Dick Cheney’s term, as the media keeps falsely reporting – the public support to remain in Afghanistan has dropped dramatically.

And there’s no reason to believe that the forfeited public support will come back.

Maybe Barack Obama is a dandy leader of the whole world – at least until the Antichrist shows up to take over for him – but he is in fact a lousy President of the United States, and an even worse commander-in-chief of the American forces in Afghanistan.