The Left's Favorite Traitor

The Left's Favorite Traitor

Ralph Peters explains what an absolute jackwagon Manning is and what should have been done immediately. Apparently, treason is socially acceptable behavior within the elitist's circles.

From Attorney General Eric Holder down to Code Pink, from George Soros to the spring-butt arch-liberals of Hollywood, nobody takes treason seriously anymore. Oh, our Justice Department may go after a leaker who embarrasses President Obama. But those who steal hundreds of thousands of classified documents, accept the stolen goods, publicize them—and then print them in newspapers “in the public interest” are safe from serious consequences.

Once Again, Col Peters Nails It

Terrorism's triumphant techniques
By RALPH PETERS

Our terrorist enemies are out-thinking us. It's not only embarrassing, but deadly.

The Taliban's latest innovation was on display again last week, when a suicide bomber, reportedly garbed in an Afghan army uniform, killed seven Americans, including a CIA station chief.

The terrorists are "inside the wire." Everywhere. From eastern Afghanistan to Texas. And we're stalled. For all of our wealth, technology and power, our enemies have the strategic and psychological initiative. The low-tech nature of most reported combat in our recent conflicts obscures the advent of four powerful innovations in warfare.

Unfortunately, three of those revolutionary techniques belong to our enemies. The single breakthrough we've exploited has been Unmanned Aerial Vehicles -- UAVs, commonly known as "drones." They're a terrific stand-off targeting tool. Our enemies, though, have mastered new forms of the tactical fight -- with strategic effects. They still lose every classic firefight, but they are pioneering the means to win without directly confronting our combat troops.

The first terrorist and insurgent innovation of this conflict era was the bulk employment of suicide bombers, dirt-cheap weapons with a high probability of success -- the poor man's precision arsenal.

Their second innovation was another cheap-but-powerful tool, the Improvised Explosive Device, the IED or roadside bomb. We still can't beat it.

Then, over the last year or so, we've seen the ever more frequent use of their most insidious psychological weapon: the suicide assassin disguised as "one of ours."

This is an anti-morale nuke. Our linchpin effort in Afghanistan is the development of Afghan security forces. (The Obama Doctrine: "When they stand up, we'll run like hell.") And building up the Afghan army and police relies on trust between our trainers and advisers and "their" Afghans -- as well as between Afghans themselves.

Last year, we saw incident after incident in which a Taliban cadre within the Afghan security forces gunned down our officers at meetings (the Brits took a really bad hit), turned their weapons on our combat troops or, most devastatingly, blew themselves up when we embraced them as comrades.

Don't let this weapon's low-tech nature fool you. This is the big one. President Obama's desperate "strategy" for Afghanistan relies on building trust -- between Afghans and their government, but above all on the security front. Our enemies have done what we refuse to do. They've analyzed the problem objectively and engineered ruthless solutions.

And we won't even block their Internet sites.

We make up fairy tales about the power of development projects to deter religious fanatics. We impose rules of engagement on our troops that protect our enemies. We ground our air power. We grant terrorists "legal" rights with no basis in existing law.
And our enemies do whatever it takes to win.

I want to see every one of those enemies dead. But I have to acknowledge their commitment, their maddened courage and their genius at waging war for peanuts. Our troops in the field know all too well what a self-imposed mess we're in. But the gulf between our grunts and their generals is immense and growing wider.

It's a (literally) bloody disgrace that our ragtag enemies innovate faster and more effectively than our armed forces and the legion of overpaid contractors behind them.

They ask themselves, "What works?"

We ask ourselves what the lawyers will say.

The crucial difference?

Our enemies believe in victory, even if we don't.

The Chronicle-Mark Alexander

Upright
"The full transcript of President Obama's long-delayed speech on Afghanistan is here. You can watch it in full here. Bush-bashing? Check. Noxious complaining about the cost of fighting a necessary war? Check. Disingenuous denial that he dithered? Check. 'Let me be clear's = 9. Self-congratulations for sticking to Gitmo closure policy = 1. Self-referential 'As your Commander-in-Chief's = 2. References to global jihad = 0." --columnist Michelle Malkin

"[In his speech Tuesday night,] Obama did what he could to mollify those [on the Left] by blaming Bush -- always a safe bet when trying to curry favor from the Left -- and by declaring there would be a time limit on the new deployment and they would be withdrawn starting in July 2011 -- just as the 2012 re-election campaign would be getting underway." --political analyst Rich Galen

"The issue isn't whether a war is popular: either it has to be fought or it doesn't. It is a president's duty to define the war and lead the nation to victory. And if a war is worth one American life, it is -- by definition -- worth however many dollars it takes to win. Domestic spending must be curtailed to fund a war, not the other way around." --columnist Jed Babbin

"[S]trategic success isn't Obama's ultimate concern. He wants political cover and is doing all he can to ensure that he's not on the blame-line, no matter what happens. He wants to appear strong -- but without unleashing our strength. He'll send more troops -- but won't let them do more." --columnist Ralph Peters

"The blunt truth is: The United States needs to win in Afghanistan. Defeating the Taliban and destroying al-Qa'ida is in our vital interests. It is the price of peace in South Asia. It is the only way to prevent another 9/11. By dedicating the resources needed to win and by getting our fiscal house in order, we can keep our nation safe, free and prosperous. Any other talk is just politics." --James Jay Carafano of The Heritage Foundation

"The reason the Democratic leadership and the White House are rushing to pass the [health care] bill is that they know it is killing them and believe doing it quickly will kill fewer of them than doing it slowly. If they pass it by year's end, perhaps voters will move on to other concerns by the November 2010 midterm elections." --columnist Byron York

"How many times has a liberal touted this or that government agenda with the idea that they're doing it 'for the children.' When more Americans begin to understand that the more accurate phrase it 'to the children,' it will be the beginning of the end for these power-hungry thugs. Here's hoping it happens sooner rather than later." --columnist Arnold Ahlert

Want To Solve The Problem of Illegal Detention?

Combatants on the field of battle; with weapons; wearing no uniforms; operating under no flag; with no allegience to a sovereign government; killing innocents and American and Coalition forces without remorse; having demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that their surrender is not an option and their intention is to continue killing innocents, deserve to die.

Is that judgemental? You damn skippy it is. Will I be judged based on my belief that the enemy is dangerous and the world is safer without them? I hope so.

Its a Marine thing. If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand anyway.

You want to stop illegal detention?
Stop taking prisioners.

H/T Major Pain

Gitmo? No, Kill Thugs On Spot

By Ralph Peters

WE made one great mistake regarding Guantanamo: No terrorist should have made it that far. All but a handful of those grotesquely romanticized prisoners should have been killed on the battlefield. The few kept alive for their intelligence value should have been interrogated secretly, then executed.

Terrorists don't have legal rights or human rights. By committing or abetting acts of terror against the innocent, they place themselves outside of humanity's borders. They must be hunted as man-killing animals.

And, as a side benefit, dead terrorists don't pose legal quandaries. Captured terrorists, on the other hand, are always a liability. Last week, President Obama revealed his utter failure to comprehend these butchers when he characterized Guantanamo as a terrorist recruiting tool.

Gitmo wasn't any such thing. Not the real Gitmo. The Guantanamo Obama believes in is a fiction of the global media. With rare, brief exceptions, Gitmo inmates have been treated far better than US citizens in our federal prisons.

But the reality of Gitmo was irrelevant -- the left needed us to be evil, to "reveal" ourselves as the moral equivalent of the terrorists. So they made up their Gitmo myths.

Now we're stuck with sub-human creatures who should be decomposing in unmarked graves in a distant desert. Before reality smacked him between the eyes, Obama made blithe campaign promises and quick-draw presidential pronouncements he's now unable to fulfill.

Everything's easier when you're campaigning and criticizing, but the Oval Office view is a different matter. And suddenly your old allies, who rhapsodized about the evils of Gitmo, no longer have your back.

Odious senators, such as John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, damned Gitmo to hell. But they don't want to damn the prisoners to Massachusetts (given that few al Qaeda members can swim, Cape Cod seems a splendid place for a prison). Don't the icons of ethics want to solve the problem?

Or should we send the Gitmo Gang to California's Eighth Congressional District, where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's constituents could guarantee an end to waterboarding? The good voters of San Francisco could put up their new guests in a grand Nob Hill hotel and stage teach-ins to explain why America's so nasty.

Another option -- which would save taxpayers millions -- would be to encourage a coalition of MoveOn.org, Code Pink and ACORN to sponsor an "Adopt a Terrorist" program.

The only requirement would be that the terrorist has to live full-time with the sponsor's family so he'd always get plenty of hugs.

On a serious note, it's not just voter NIMBY-ism that makes this problem so difficult. The practical catches came home to me when last I visited Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.

The grounds of a massive federal penitentiary adjoin that venerable Army post. One Washington-isn't-thinking proposal would park the terrorists right there in the Big House. But here's the catch: Ft. Leavenworth's home to the Army's Command and General Staff College, attended each year by hundreds of elite foreign officers.

At CGSC, our officers build international relationships that benefit our country for decades to come, while allies and partners learn how to work together. But with Islamist terrorists confined next door -- hardly a mile as the crow flies from the Staff College -- Muslim countries would withdraw their students from the program under pressure from Islamist factions at home -- who'd claim that Ft. Leavenworth was the new Gitmo.

Do we really want to sacrifice our chance to educate officers from the troubled Muslim world? Do we want to destroy an educational program that's been of tremendous benefit? One that's advanced the rule of law and human rights?

Other proposed prison locations have their own challenges (although Cape Cod still looks pretty good to me). Meanwhile, our foreign "friends" who shuddered at the imaginary horrors of Gitmo are unwilling to share the burden.

Which brings us back to this column's opening credo: Terrorists are anathema to civilization and the human race. By their own choice, they've set themselves beyond the human collective. Better to eliminate them where you find them than to let them live to become a lunatic cause.

Telling them that we'll just lock them up and treat them really nice is a better terrorist recruiting tool than Gitmo ever was. Why not become a terrorist, if the punishment's three hots and a cot, along with better medical care than you've ever had in your life?

Plus, you get your own fan club.

Those who worry about the rights of terrorists ensure that these beasts will continue to slaughter the innocent. In your back yard.

The Ghosts Understand

With things going so well in Iraq, the embed count is nearing zero.
By Ralph Peters

FT. LEAVENWORTH, KAN.--THE Missouri River runs brown in the winter. Standing on the western bluff, you look down past still-visible wagon ruts marking the start of the Santa Fe Trail and on to the landing that served Lewis and Clark.
Across the river's great bend, bare trees fringe the floodplain that rises to the low hills of Missouri. Under the winter sun, the panorama gleams with a heartland beauty. A passenger jet rises in the distance. Turn around: You're at the heart of Ft. Leavenworth, the soul of the US Army, where centuries of ghosts watch over men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

From here, the Cavalry rode west and the troop trains rolled east.

Amid the old brick quarters and barracks, Sherman had second thoughts about his career and a young instructor named Eisenhower, who longed to be fighting in France, dressed down a carefree volunteer named F. Scott Fitzgerald.

At dawn, the ghosts congregate so thickly by the old parade ground that you almost feel their touch as you jog by. They come out to recall the campfires and campaigns, and to stand watch over those who've rallied to their traditions, who took up the guidons and flags. The spirits who once wore blue then gray, Cavalry twill or olive drab, are proud these days. As a new class of officers enters the Army's Command and General Staff College, virtually every one wears a combat patch on the right sleeve.

The ghosts understand.

The wraiths are there by the chapel, standing to. They once rode west across an unmapped prairie, stormed Mexico City's gates, faced off at Vicksburg and finally quelled the Apaches. They went over the top in France, survived the Bataan Death March and rode helicopters into firefights.

They understand.

But the old ghosts don't understand the times beyond the post's front gate. They can't understand the devious spite the nation's elite directs toward our troops.

How could these spirits - who saw more American soldiers die in an afternoon than have fallen in six years in Iraq - comprehend the privileged Americans who delight in tales of rising military suicide rates or "vets gone wild," while ignoring the heroes who've won a war that America's intellectuals declared unwinnable?

Well, Sherman's wraith understands: At one point in our Civil War, he banished the press from his camps and hankered to string up a few reporters.

But the other ghosts are befuddled. Grant, our greatest general, believed that crises would bring out our best.

Earlier this week, I spoke with present-day officers studying at Ft. Leavenworth. It struck me, yet again, that we have never had a better Army. (The Navy, Marines and Air Force are represented, too - by tradition, all the services send contingents to each others' staff colleges.) These men and women in US uniforms are serious and skilled, bold and uncomplaining. What's striking is how little they expect: Of all Americans, they have the least sense of entitlement and the greatest sense of duty.

Nor is the officer corps forged by our current wars a breed of yes-men. They've learned the hard way to ask the toughest questions. Listen to the majors in the new class and you find Army officers dubious about our lack of a strategy in Afghanistan, Air Force pilots appalled at the waste involved in buying the F-22 - and sailors (far from the sea) thinking beyond the horizon to future threats.

And then there are the Marine officers, ready for anything.

The closest thing to bitching I encountered was an observation by a superb public-affairs officer with whom I worked in Anbar: Now that things are going so well in Iraq, he reports, the press isn't interested - the embed count is dropping toward zero.

Well, during my latest visit to Ft. Leavenworth I didn't meet any of the tormented, twisted soldiers the press and Hollywood adore. Just the men and women who stand between our country and the darkness.

They're home with their families for a bit, but the workload at the Staff College is heavy. Officers who grasp the tenets of counterinsurgency have to master big-war planning, too. We need to be prepared for any conflict.

And these officers who, for a few months, have traded their weapons for computer screens, will be ready. These are the men and women the headlines ignore. Because these are the officers who won.

The ghosts can stand at ease.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and a Command and General Staff College grad (barely).