Tag Archives: Taliban

military news

Trump throws down on Pakistan

2 Comments

There’s quite a bit to parse about Donald Trump speech tonight about a change of strategy in our nation’s ongoing war in Afghanistan and its military policies regarding South Asia.

Let’s look briefly at Pakistan

The president has declared that Pakistan has to step up and become a significant U.S. ally in the fight against the Taliban, ISIS and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

I actually agree with the president’s view on Pakistan, a nation I never have trusted fully to be a valuable partner in that struggle. You’ll recall that in May 2011 our SEAL and CIA commandos killed Osama bin Laden in a compound where he lived for years inside of Pakistan. No one has yet produced evidence that the Pakistanis were totally ignorant of bin Laden’s presence inside their country.

So, yes, the Pakistanis have to demonstrate their commitment to fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan.

Then the president reached across Pakistan and tapped its arch-rival India to play a larger role in this effort. Can there be a more stinging slap in the Pakistanis’ face than that?

The strategy change as delivered tonight lacks detail. Trump’s decision to wage war until circumstances dictate a possible end creates the potential for an open-ended conflict. Are we ready for that?

He also laid down a marker at the feet of the Afghan government. Trump wants to see “real results” in an effort to end corruption. He wants to see the Afghans demonstrate a military capability that prevents the Taliban from return to power.

The president talked for quite a long time before running for office that the Afghan War was a foolish contest. Then he took his seat behind the Oval Office desk, he said tonight, and saw things differently. I’m glad he recognized how perspectives change when you obtain power.

Something is gnawing at my gut that we’ve just heard the president of the United States commit this country to continuing fighting a war that still seems to lack a strategy for winning.

U.S. forces won far more battles in Vietnam than they lost. Conventional wisdom held that we should have actually won that war. We didn’t. The Vietnamese outlasted us. We left and the enemy we “defeated” on the battlefield took control of the government we sought to protect and preserve.

Is there a similar outcome awaiting us in Afghanistan?

national news

How many more ‘worst weeks’ can POTUS endure?

It’s been said over the past couple of days that Donald J. Trump’s list of “worst weeks of his presidency” has become too numerous to count. Suffice to say that the week just past likely qualifies as his last “worst week.”

They rioted in Charlottesville, Va., over a Confederate statue. A young woman — someone who was there to protest the neo-Nazi/Klan/white supremacists who objected to the removal of the statue — was run over in what has been called an act of “domestic terrorism.” The president first blamed “many sides” for the violence; then he blamed the KKK and neo-Nazis for it; then he blamed “both sides” and accused the “alt-left” of provoking an angry response from the Nazis/KKK.

It got real crappy for the president.

A new week is about to convene for the commander in chief and he’s got a chance — or so it appears — to do something right. He’s going to speak to the nation at 8 p.m. (CDT) Monday to announce a new “strategy for Afghanistan and South Asia.”

We’ve been at war in Afghanistan for 16 years, the longest stretch of open warfare in the nation’s history. The 9/11 terrorists declared war on the United States and President Bush responded quickly. The war continued through his two terms and through two terms of Barack Obama’s presidency.

What is the current president going to tell us? Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis would reveal it. He chose wisely to leave it to the president to make his own announcement.

What should Trump do? My sincere hope was that we could end the contest in Afghanistan. That won’t happen. The war we’ve fought there hasn’t produced the ironclad strength in the government we installed when we threw the Taliban out of power in 2001.

The nation will wait to hear from the president about how he intends to continue prosecuting this war. That’s his call.

I’ll just ask one favor: Please, Mr. President, stick to the issue at hand and spare us yet another boasting of how smart you are, how rich you are, how many “really smart people” surround you, and how you won the presidency against all odds.

We’ve got young Americans in harm’s way, Mr. President, and now is the time to present yourself as a commander in chief who knows what the hell he’s doing.

International news, military news, national news

Where’s the battle plan, Mr. President?

“I know more about ISIS than the generals. Believe me.”

— Donald Trump, while campaigning for president in 2016

This is one of my favorite moments from the 2016 presidential campaign. Donald J. Trump sought to persuade his (now-shrinking) legions of fans that he was the man with the plan to fight the bad guys.

He won the election. Trump took command of our armed forces. The fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram and other terror groups goes on.

Now, though, the president of the United States is angry. Those generals who have been engaged in this fight against terrorists haven’t defeated them yet. Our vaunted military hasn’t yet killed every single terrorist and brought those villainous organizations to their knees.

Trump’s reliance on “the generals” is a ruse, isn’t it? Doesn’t the commander in chief know more about how to fight ISIS and, I presume, other terrorists than they do? Were that the case, then where in the world is the presidential battle plan? Why doesn’t he reveal to the Pentagon brass how they should implement his strategy?

Reports have bubbled out of the White House that the president is dissatisfied with the progress of the Afghan War, which the United States has been fighting since 2001 in response to the 9/11 terror attack in the United States.

The president ought to consider settling down just a bit.

He has a fine man leading the Defense Department, retired Marine Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis. The new White House chief of staff is another retired Marine general, John Kelly. Trump’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, is an active duty Army lieutenant general. He has two four-stars and a three-star general as critical parts of his national security team. They’re all brilliant military men.

They also are fighting a profoundly unconventional enemy. These terror groups took the fight to us on 9/11 and we have responded with precision, professionalism and cold calculation. Our nation’s counter-terrorism team tracked down Osama bin Laden and a SEAL/CIA team took him out, killed him dead.

Donald Trump clearly doesn’t “know more about ISIS” than the military professionals who provide him with advice and military counsel.

And, no, Mr. President, the United States is not “losing” the Afghan War. Everyone in America knew this would be a long slog when we went to war in Afghanistan.

If only the president simply would pay attention.

military news

That’s some good shootin’, eh?

There might be no greater example of the difference in battlefield strategy between our side and the Islamic State than a story I’ve just read.

A Canadian special forces soldier fired a high-powered rifle shot at an ISIS fighter and killed him — from a distance of two miles! The kill shot reportedly set some form of record for long-distance sniper fire.

The 3,450-meter shot took 10 seconds to hit its target after being fired from the weapon. The soldier was perched atop a high-rise structure when the incident occurred over the past 30 days.

Wow, man!

I love this quote from a Task Force 2 spokesman: “Instead of dropping a bomb that could potentially kill civilians in the area, it is a very precise application of force and because it was so far way, the bad guys didn’t have a clue what was happening.”

Therein lies the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. ISIS, al-Qaeda, Taliban and other terrorist organizations target civilians. They intend to inflict mass casualties on so-called “soft targets.” The approach taken by U.S. and allied forces in return is to seek to minimize such collateral damage.

In the case of this Canadian sniper, well, he did his job with extreme precision — not to mention extreme prejudice.

Read the USA Today story here.

According to the newspaper: “Canada has a world-class sniper system,” the source told the paper. “It is not just a sniper. They work in pairs. … This is a skill set that only a very few people have.”
They also have to account for wind speed and the increasing downward motion of the bullet as it loses speed over such a long distance.

Count me as one who is glad to know these guys are on our side in this fight.

national news

New president might face huge intraparty hurdle

mcconnel-and-trump

Donald Trump has good reason to smile.

He won the presidency over someone thought to be the prohibitive favorite. He is now selecting members of his team … to mixed reviews to be sure. Hey, what difference does it make? He won the election.

Now comes the sternest of tests for the new president. He has to govern alongside the very members of Congress he disparaged whenever he could; he demonized them; he called them names, such as “loser.”

I’m not talking about Democrats, mind you. I’m talking about Republicans who control both congressional chambers.

They’re grinning these days, too. I’m not sure whether they’re happy to be working with a fellow Republican (In Name Only) or whether they’re anticipating being able to stick it to the guy who called them all those nasty names.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/republican-party-obstructionism-victory-trump-214498

The Politico story attached to this post talks about how the Republicans’ strategy of “no” worked so well against President Obama. It also reminds us of how that strategy enabled them to win back the House of Representatives in 2010, the Senate in 2014 and now the White House in 2016.

Who do they get as president? The guy from within Republican ranks who ran against them!

All this sets up an interesting dichotomy for Republicans, many of whom are those “establishment” types who don’t trust Trump as being truly one of them.

It’s a given, of course, that Democrats who detest Trump are going to do all they can to stop anything the new president wants to do — much like Republicans sought to do when Barack Obama arrived in the Oval Office. The Politico article reminds us that the president got his $800 billion economic stimulus package approved in 2009 with virtually zero GOP support.

How is Trump going to cope with those Republicans who will resist him on, say, his enormous proposed infrastructure project? They keep telling us the Treasury doesn’t have the money.

I guess Trump could remind them that they didn’t have the money to go to war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in 2001, but they did — while approving tax cuts proposed by President Bush. My guess is that GOP leaders in the House and Senate wouldn’t like to hear such a thing coming from one of their own.

We talked during the length of the election campaign that we were entering a new era. This would be the most unconventional election in history. That presumed a Hillary Clinton victory, for crying out loud.

The other person won. Let’s get ready for the most unconventional governance in U.S. history.

My often-trusty trick knee tells me the Republicans who run Capitol Hill might try to wipe the smile off Donald Trump’s face.

military news, national news, political news

Trump damages due process

bergdahl

Donald J. Trump proved beyond anyone’s doubt that political candidates can — and do — say anything without regard to the consequences to certain cherished American principles … such as, oh, due process.

While running for president, Trump condemned a U.S. Army sergeant as a “rotten traitor.” The man in question is Bowe Bergdahl, who is set to be court-martialed in the spring on charges that he walked off his post in Afghanistan before he was captured by Taliban terrorists.

He was held captive for five years. Then he was released in a prisoner swap with U.S. officials.

I am not going to make an assertion about Bergdahl’s guilt or innocence. I wasn’t there. Neither was Trump. Or anyone other than the Taliban terrorists and Bergdahl. That didn’t prevent Trump from issuing a blanket campaign-stump conviction of the young man.

Moreover, as the New York Times wondered in an editorial published today, the rants of the future commander in chief likely have put Bergdahl’s right to a fair trail in extreme jeopardy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/opinion/sunday/the-soldier-donald-trump-called-a-traitor.html?ref=opinion

As the Times stated: “Sergeant Bergdahl is charged with desertion and misbehavior in front of the enemy; a guilty verdict could result in a sentence anywhere from no jail time to life. But how can he get a fair trial in the military justice system when the next commander in chief has proclaimed his guilt and accused him of treason?

“The short answer is he can’t.”

The Army has charged Bergdahl with desertion and he could be sentenced to prison for the rest of his life if he’s convicted.

Trump’s proclamation of guilt of one of the men who soon will be under his command speaks to his utter disregard for the rule of law and of the due process that is accorded to all criminal defendants.

The Times suggests that President Obama might grant Bergdahl a pardon to allow him to “rebuild his life” and avoid what it calls a “questionable” prosecution. The Times states that Bergdahl had a pre-existing mental condition when he enlisted in the Army, which granted him an enlistment waiver.

Given the poison that the next commander in chief has inserted into this pre-trial discussion, the current commander in chief ought to take a hard look at a pardon.

Trump’s rhetorical recklessness only demonstrates his unfitness for the job he is about to assume.

International news, national news, political news

Trump calls for another un-American policy

trump

Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign is based essentially on his vow to “make America great again.”

If he means it — and I’m not entirely sure he does — then why on Earth does he keep making patently in-American foreign-policy proposals?

Here’s the latest one: The Republican presidential nominee wants to put all immigrants through an ideology test before they are allowed entry into the United States.

He would require customs and immigrations agents to quiz every immigrant seeking residence in the United States about their feelings on such issues as gay rights, gender equality and religious freedom.

If they answer the “right” way, they’re in. If not, they go back. Is that how it works?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-to-call-for-new-ideological-test-for-admission-to-us/ar-BBvD2lE?li=BBnb7Kz

We’ve already listened to Trump rail against Muslims while proposing to ban them from entering the United States. He’s called illegal Latin American immigrants rapists, murderers and drug dealers and wants to build a “beautiful wall” across our southern border to keep them out.

And, oh yes, he talks about all this under the theme of making America great again.

What utter horse manure!

He’s going to talk about a plan to discontinue “nation-building” as part of our foreign policy. I actually agree with that. Look what nation-building has brought us: continued bloodshed in Iraq after we toppled the dictator Saddam Hussein; more of the same in Afghanistan after we routed the Taliban from power after 9/11; Libya remains a mess.

But this idiotic notion of applying an ideological test to all immigrants seeks to throw a shroud over the beacon that draws immigrants to our land in the first place.

International news, military news

No ‘eye for an eye’ exchange here

mullah

I got scolded the other day for a blog I posted commenting on the drone strike that killed Taliban leader Mullah Mansour.

The fellow who scolded me said the U.S. air strike against the terrorist leader gives cause to continue the fighting.

Someone has to stop it, the individual seemed to imply. Thus, the implied question was: Why not us?

Many of those who read High Plains Blogger — and I am grateful beyond measure for those who do — likely think of me as a squishy liberal, a softy who wants to talk everything through.

When it comes to our war against international terror, I take a back seat to no one in the continuing prosecution of that effort. No, I don’t want us to send combat troops back onto the battlefield. I fully support the air strikes we’ve been launching against the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

My critic wondered whether we were engaging in an “eye-for-an-eye” type of response.

My view simply is this: The terrorists are targeting innocent victims, mostly fellow Muslims; we are killing the killers.

I see zero compatibility between what the terrorists are doing and what we are doing in response.

Keep the aircraft armed and on the hunt for the bad guys. We’ve got a lot more of them to kill.

 

International news, military news

Another terrorist leader reduced to powder

drone

Well, here we go again.

Another terrorist leader has been turned into dust. A U.S. drone strike hit Mullah Mohammad Akhtar Mansour just inside the Pakistan border with Afghanistan.

Boom! He’s gone.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/afghan-leaders-see-taliban-leaders-death-as-hopeful-sign/ar-BBtk1Or?ocid=spartandhp

Intelligence and military leaders in the Pentagon and at CIA call Mansour’s death the most important since the SEALs took out Osama bin Laden in May 2011.

What does it mean in the grand scheme?

It means the Taliban — the cabal that the White House continues to say is not a terrorist organization — needs to find a new leader.

Mansour had been called one of the major obstacles to trying to persuade the Taliban to join in negotiations to achieve something akin to peace in Afghanistan.

“Peace is what we want. Mansour was a threat to that effort,” Secretary of State John Kerry said. “He also was directly opposed to peace negotiations and to the reconciliation process. It is time for Afghans to stop fighting and to start building a real future together.”

The strike illustrates once again that intelligence-gathering remains critical to the hunting down of these terrorist monsters.

Now … let’s go after the rest of them.

 

International news, military news, national news

Hey, the Taliban really are terrorists!

050712_an_taliban_640

Consider this an open letter to CIA director John Brennan.

Dear Mr. Brennan:

You need to rethink your cockamamie notion that the Taliban is not a terrorist organization. Now!

Have you heard the news? The Taliban exploded a bomb in a park in Lahore. It killed 65 Christians who were gathered there. Most of the victims were women and children.

Attack aimed at Christians

Let’s see. The attack occurred on Christianity’s holiest holiday. The Taliban actually stated it that it was targeting Christians. The victims were defenseless against the attack.

I do believe, Mr. Director, that the act committed today constitutes a bona fide act of terror. It was aimed precisely at non-combatants and its aim now is to put other such individuals or groups of individuals on notice that they may be next.

This is worth bringing up because of the exchange negotiated with the Taliban that brought about the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who’d been held by the Taliban for five years after he walked off his post in Afghanistan.

I’m sure you recall that White House press flack Josh Earnest said the United States “negotiated” the release because it doesn’t consider the Taliban to be a terrorist organization. We don’t “negotiate with terrorists,” Earnest told us.

Fair enough.

Except that the Taliban for decades has terrorized women and children. Yes, it has resorted to violence against those who oppose its repression.

Now we have this incident of terror in the park in Lahore, Pakistan.

It was committed by the Taliban. The group sought to terrorize innocent people.

If this is not the action of a terrorist organization, then no such organization exists anywhere on the planet. We all know that’s not the case.

The Taliban needs to be treated as the terrorists they are — and always have been.