The ‘Look At Me’ President

Fox News is reporting today that two senior Defense officials told Fox News that President Obama has authorized the U.S. to fly surveillance drones over Syria. Why in the world is this being announced? Did former Presidents announce surveillance flights over other countries? We are not actually at war with Syria, so why in the world should we make this announcement? I am not opposed to the surveillance flights–we should have been doing them all along–I am opposed to the fact that the Obama Administration announced them.

The article reports:

Sources told Fox News that Obama approved surveillance missions in Syria for the first time over the weekend; they have since begun. 

It remains to be seen whether the Syrian government will raise any objections to the move. On Monday, the Syrian regime demanded that the U.S. seek permission before launching any airstrikes on its territory against Islamic State targets, but did not discuss its position on surveillance drones. 

The internal discussion over whether to expand the U.S. mission into Syria comes after the U.S. military earlier this month began launching a volley of strikes against Islamic State targets in northern Iraq. Top Pentagon officials have said that the only way the threat from the militants can be fully eliminated is to go after the group inside neighboring Syria as well. 

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Tuesday that the U.S. wants more clarity on the militants in Syria, but declined to comment on the surveillance flights.

“Clearly the picture we have of ISIS on the Iraqi side is a more refined picture,” said Dempsey, using one of the acronyms for the Islamic State group. “The existence and activities of ISIS on the Syrian side, we have … some insights into that but we certainly want to have more insights into that as we craft a way forward.”

The action is considered the first “intrusive” surveillance by the U.S. in Syria since the country’s civil war began. This differs from protective surveillance, such as the U.S. used in the failed mission to rescue American hostages held in Syria.

I don’t have a problem with destroying ISIS, but I think we need to take a very close look at who we are supporting when we oppose ISIS. In opposing ISIS, we are supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. We also need to remember that Iran also opposes ISIS. ISIS is a horrible group of people, but do we really want to align ourselves with Bashar al-Assad and Iran? I am not sure there are any good guys in this. We need to help the Kurds defend themselves, but I am not sure we need to do anything else.

Occasionally Someone In Washington Actually Tells The Truth

Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy posted an article last Tuesday about a recent statement made on CNN’s “State of the Union.” The guests on the program were chairpersons of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI).

The article quotes Senator Feinstein’s comments on the subject of terrorism:

“There is a real displaced aggression in this very fundamentalist jihadist Islamic community, and that is that the West is responsible for everything that goes wrong and that the only thing that’s going to solve this is Islamic shariah law.”

She used some very intellectual sounding words to speak the obvious truth–the goal of Islam is a worldwide caliphate governed by Sharia Law. Unfortunately, due to the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, there are many places in our government where it would be illegal to speak those words.

The article cites an example of what happens when people in government (other than Senator Feinstein) tell the truth:

For example, on May 10, 2012, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, used a press conference to denounce a highly decorated and up-and-coming Army officer, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, for teaching an elective course at the Joint Forces Staff College using an approved curriculum.  According to Gen. Dempsey, what prompted this extraordinary action was that a student – who it turns out had not actually been enrolled in Col. Dooley’s class – “was concerned that the course was objectionable and that it was counter to our values…our appreciation for religious freedom and cultural awareness. And the young man who brought it to my attention was absolutely right. It’s totally objectionable.”

At the core of what was so “totally objectionable” is the fact that students were exposed to information that made plain the gravity of the threat of which Sen. Feinstein warned: the supremacist, totalitarian Islamic doctrine of shariah and the jihad or holy war it obliges adherents to perform.  Col. Dooley’s promising career was cut short and the files of his institution and that of the rest of the national security community have been purged of all such information deemed by unidentified subject matters experts engaged for the purpose to be “counter to our values.”

Why isn’t the government telling us about the dangers of radical Islam? The answer to that questions can be found in a ten-part on-line series entitled, “The Muslim Brotherhood in America.” I realize that watching the entire series is time consuming, but every American should be required to watch the last part of the series–it is the part that outlines what we are Americans need to do to preserve our liberty.

Senator Feinstein spoke the truth. Is anyone out there listening?


Enhanced by Zemanta

Searching For The Truth

Yesterday CNS News posted a story questioning the accuracy of some of the Congressional testimony regarding the attack at Benghazi.
The article reports:

An attorney whose firm represents two Benghazi whistleblowers said Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, lied to the Senate when he said there was never a “stand down” order during the Benghazi attack on Sept. 11, 2012.

This contradicts the testimony of Gregory Hicks, former number two State Department diplomat in Libya. According to the article:

Hicks told Congress that after the first attack, a security team left Tripoli for Benghazi with two military personnel and that four members of a special forces team in Tripoli wanted to go in a second wave but were told to stand down.

I have previously reported on this aspect of the story ( Despite the fact that the attack was more than nine months ago, these questions about what happened that night remain unanswered. I believe that all Americans are entitled to answers–especially the family members of those who lost their lives their night.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Truly Sad Story

The American military includes some of our best and brightest young men–both officers and enlisted. These men have volunteered to protect the freedoms that all of us hold dear. It is very unfortunate when our government undermines the valuable work these men do.

On April 28, the Washington Times posted a story about one of these valiant young men who help protect us. Lt. Col Matthew Dooley is a West Point graduate and highly-decorated combat veteran.

A website on facebook gives the background of his story:

He taught military students about the situations they would encounter, how to react, about Islamic culture, traditions, and explained the mindset of Islamic extremists. Passing down first hand knowledge and experience, and teaching courses that were suggested (and approved) by the the Joint Forces Staff College. The course “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism” ,which was suggested and approved by the Joint Forces Staff College, caught the attention of several Islamic Groups, and they wanted to make an example of him.

They collectively wrote a letter expressing their outrage, and the Pro-Islamic Obama Administration was all too happy to assist. The letter was passed to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , Martin Dempsey. Dempsey publicly degraded and reprimanded Dooley, and Dooley received a negative Officer Evaluation Report almost immediately (which he had aced for the past 5 years). He was relieved of teaching duties, and his career has been red-flagged.

“He had a brilliant career ahead of him. Now, he has been flagged.” – Richard Thompson, Thomas More Law Center.

The story continues in the Washington Times:

Last year, Col. Dooley underwent an Army command selection board review after he was transferred from the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Va., to a weapons integration unit at Fort Eustis, Va.

The review board, comprising three generals and two colonels, voted to keep Col. Dooley as a candidate for battalion commander, his attorney, Richard Thompson, told The Times.

The board, however, was overruled by Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, then the Army’s vice chief and now chief of U.S. Central Command. He ordered Col. Dooley’s name removed from the candidates list, said Mr. Thompson, who added that he had read the “official use only” memo.

…Mr. Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan, said the blame for Col. Dooley’s treatment ultimately belongs to ArmyGen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Gen. Dempsey publicly condemned Col. Dooley’s teachings and set into motion investigations that resulted in his firing.

This is not only wrong, it is dangerous. As the Boston Marathon bombings illustrated, radical Islam is a threat to America. We have two choices, we can either bury our heads in the sand in the name of political correctness or we can grow up and deal with the problem. Col. Dooley was attempting to deal with the problem when he ran headlong into the chopping blades of political correctness.

The most telling paragraphs in the Washington Times article:

Col. Dooley’s downfall began in October 2011 with a letter sent by 57 American Islamic organizations to John O. Brennan, then President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser and now CIA director.

The groups, which include two tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, which calls for global Islamic law, demanded that the government scrub its teaching on Islam. The White House complied.

I hope America survives long enough to elect a President who understands that we have radical Islamists in America and they desire to harm us. To bend to the demands of groups that call for a global caliphate is national suicide.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Testimony On Benghazi Only Gets Worse

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about the testimony of Army Gen. Martin Dempsey during the Congressional hearings Thursday.

The testimony from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was telling:

“The United States military is not and should not be a global 911 service capable of arriving on the scene within minutes to every possible contingency around the world,” Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

This was followed by the testimony of General Dempsey:

“Why didn’t you put forces in place to be ready to respond?,” Senator John McCain asked the general.

Dempsey started, “Because we never received a request to do so, number one. And number two, we –”

McCain interrupted, “You never heard of Ambassador Stevens’s repeated warnings?”

“I had, through General Ham,” responded Dempsey, referring to the commander of AFRICOM. “But we never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forces–”

“So it’s the State Department’s fault?”

“I’m not blaming the State Department,” Dempsey responded.

Any American who is paying attention and has common sense knows that September 11 has become an important day for terrorists who want to attack America. It is also logical that terrorists would attack a ‘soft’ target–one that was not heavily defended. It is also obvious to Americans paying attention that the situation in Libya has not been stable since the revolution there. So the logical thing to do would have been to increase the security at Benghazi at least on a temporary basis. Instead, the brilliant minds at the State Department decreased security (Washington Times October 2012) in the weeks before September 11.

Four Americans died because the people in charge were not paying attention. It is extremely unfortunate that many of the same people were still in charge after the attack.Enhanced by Zemanta

With Friends Like This…

One of the problems with the Obama Administration’s foreign policy is that for the past three years it seems as if we have watched our country reward our enemies and dis our friends. It’s getting worse–particularly in the case of our friend Israel.

The Blaze reported yesterday that a planned U. S. and Israel joint military exercise has been greatly scaled back.

The article reports:

Instead of the approximately 5,000 U.S. troops originally trumpeted for Austere Challenge 12…the Pentagon will send only 1,500 service members, and perhaps as few as 1,200.  Patriot anti-missile systems will arrive in Israel as planned, but the crews to operate them will not.  Instead of two Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense warships being dispatched to Israeli waters, the new plan is to send one, though even the remaining vessel is listed as a “maybe,” according to officials in both militaries.

“Basically what the Americans are saying is, ‘We don’t trust you,’” a unnamed senior Israeli military official told Time.

The U. S. of course is denying that it is a matter of trust. It really does not matter what the actual reason is–this is no way to treat our allies.

Meanwhile, is reporting:

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of U.S. armed forces, said on Thursday that he does not wish to be “complicit” in any Israeli strike on Iran.

…We compare intelligence, we discuss regional implications, and we’ve admitted to each other that our clocks are turning at different rates … Israel is living with an existential concern that we are not living with.

Dempsey then said that he didn’t know Iran’s nuclear intentions.

That’s the same kind of thinking that gave Hitler Czechoslovakia.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Changes In The American Drone Policy

Last week Kimberly Dozier, an Associated Press intelligence writer, posted an article at about recent changes in the American drone policy. The changes alter the process of targeting terrorist leaders for drone attacks that had been in effect since 2009. The changes swap the old military-run review process for a new process which involves consulting the State Department, the Pentagon, and other agencies when compiling a list of drone targets. White House counter-terror chief John Brennan‘s staff oversees the process.

The article reports:

Previously, targets were first discussed in meetings run by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen at the time, with Brennan being just one of the voices in the debate.

The new Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey, has been more focused on shrinking the U.S. military as the Afghan war winds down and less on the covert wars overseas.

With Dempsey less involved, Brennan believed there was an even greater need to draw together different agencies’ viewpoints, showing the American public that al-Qaida targets are chosen only after painstaking and exhaustive debate, the senior administration official said.

But some of the officials carrying out the policy are equally leery of “how easy it has become to kill someone,” one said. The U.S. is targeting al-Qaida operatives for reasons such as being heard in an intercepted conversation plotting to attack a U.S. ambassador overseas, the official said. Stateside, that conversation could trigger an investigation by the Secret Service or FBI.

Defense Department spokesman George Little said the department was “entirely comfortable with the process by which American counterterrorism operations are managed.

The CIA did not respond to a request for comment.

I am not particularly comfortable with the new arrangement. The State Department has different goals than the military, and in the past they have not hesitated to work against the interests of a President they disagreed with philosophically. I also don’t like the idea of putting an unelected, unaccountable civilian person in charge of a military program. We need to remember that the drone program is a targeted assassination program–it is being used to kill terrorists. It also eliminates the possibility of capturing terrorists and gathering intelligence from them.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Refusing To Fund The Defense Of America

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, photographed in the...

Image via Wikipedia

Foolishness begins at the top.

Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution states:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States;

The budget cuts in the defense the President is enacting combined with the move to turn Afghanistan back over to the Taliban will make this nation more vulnerable to attack than we were before 9/11. posted an article on the defense cuts today.

The article reports:

In an unusual appearance at the Pentagon on Thursday, President Obama laid out his plans for a “leaner” military based on the need “to renew our economic strength here at home, which is the foundation of our strength in the world.”

In other words, failed domestic policies require us to cut our military in a dangerous world.

The article concludes:

As a chart produced by the committee shows, the cumulative cuts are real cuts, both in spending levels and in military capability. The Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, said in written statements released during his recent confirmation hearings, “National security didn’t cause the debt crisis, nor will it solve it.”

We would note that defense is a constitutional imperative — not an optional budget item — and that the question should be what do we need to defend ourselves and our interests, not simply what we can afford as the result of failed administration policies.

This is another move toward turning America into a European socialist country. The reason Europe has been able to spend the amount of money it spends on welfare programs is that America has always been the big guy on the block who would come to their rescue if needed. With America essentially stepping down from her role as a world leader, there is now no one able to protect the freedom of the free countries throughout the world. We may not like to role of defender of freedom in the world, but it was a role put on us because of the blessings we have been given. It’s amazing to me that the people who are always demanding more from the ‘rich’ don’t seem to understand that America is a rich country and has a responsibility to use a part of that wealth to defend freedom.

This is simply foolishness on the part of the President.

Enhanced by Zemanta