-
How Long Is This War?
May 20, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Next: The Benghazi Select Committee
May 13, 2013 | 94 comments
-
Nobody Died in Watergate
May 9, 2013 | 148 comments
-
Benghazi Bullchips
May 6, 2013 | 184 comments
-
Obama’s Thin Red Line
April 29, 2013 | 207 comments
Loose Canons
The War on Terror Drones On
A whack-a-mole strategy is hardly enough — especially if Republicans continue sitting this one out.
(Page 2 of 2)
Imagine, if you can, a debate in which three questioners faced off with the candidates. The Dream Team of questioners would consist of a few men whose knowledge and strategic thinking about the issue of winning war and ending the threat of Islamic terrorism is known for its clarity: Former Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Richard Myers and — since this is, unfortunately, a fictional debate — me. Here are the most important questions the candidates should have to answer:
From Mr. Rumsfeld: “How would you structure and employ America’s military and intelligence capabilities to end the threat of Islamic terrorism? Give us at least three specific points in your answer.”
From Gen. Myers: “In my book Eyes on the Horizon, I wrote that ‘The nations that sponsor terrorism must stop. Compelling states to stop supporting terrorists will often require military activity, which will be inherently controversial.’ Do you agree that we have to end state sponsorship of terrorism and, if so, how would you do it?”
From me: “The war in which we are engaged is in two parts: a kinetic war, which we are fighting in places from Afghanistan to Yemen and more; and an ideological war which we haven’t yet begun to fight. How would you win the ideological war against the Islamists?”
President Obama’s defense strategy is to fight a “hands-off” war, with drones killing terrorists and rhetoric apologizing for America to the rest of the Islamic world. It is a delaying action, aimed at keeping the war off the front pages until after the election. And while all of our political energy is being used to debate why so many Texans are without health insurance, Obama’s failure to engage and defeat our principal enemies in a decisive war increases the dangers we face now and will face forever until we change the strategy or lose the war.
Leadership isn’t only about how to reduce the bloated federal budget. It’s about explaining to the American people — to paraphrase Jefferson — in words so plain and firm as to command their assent. In an election, Jefferson’s “assent” means demonstrating adherence to a leader by voting for him, not just against the other guy.
With Florida’s acceleration of the primary election schedule, there is little time for candidates to focus on anything. But if they fail to focus on this debate, they will default to Obama and leave us leaderless on the most fundamental issue affecting America’s future.
How, gentlemen, can we “win the future” if we first do not secure it?
About the Author
Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (133) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jed Babbin
More Articles From Loose Canons
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/03/the-war-on-terror-drones-on
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Consternated Conferences
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Timothy L. Pennell| 10.3.11 @ 7:18AM
May I suggest a Strategy?
Bear with me, and, I know you're gonna think that I'm CRAZY, or , that I'm OUT OF MY MIND, but...........Maybe we should start KILLING them, by the bushel? You know. The Enemy. Maybe we should start Killing lots of them? Like The Greatest Generation did.
We call our Parents, and our Grandparents: The Greatest Generation. Why? Because they didn't SCREW AROUND. When they needed a DAM? They built it. They didn't need 50 years of Red Tape and Attorneys, and they didn't give a CRAP about some Stupid Fish, or some Idiot Bird. They decided what was needed, and they GOT IT DONE. Especially, when it came to Killing our Enemies.
When they went to WAR. They went to WAR.
They Fire Bombed Dresden. Fire Bombed Tokyo. They Bombed Berlin to rubble. They NUKED Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They TRIED to kill Civilians.
And that's why we love the Greatest Generation.
So, might I suggest that we start acting like we're at War? I think that we should be using ARTILLERY. I think we should be using our AIR FORCE, with its HEAVY BOMBERS. I think our Troops should Shoot First, and ask questions, later.
This President likes to remind us all of how Great he is, using the Predators to kill these guys, one at a time. Think of the Curtain Calls he can get, killing them by the HUNDREDS.
Civilian Casualties?
I think you mean: COLLATERAL DAMAGE.
That's why they call it WAR.
Crazy, right?
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 10.3.11 @ 9:01AM
Timothy, you're Crazy, and out of your mind, but you're right!! The problem with your plan though is, the American People, and especially the media, don't have the heart to fight the War your way. We don't want to look like the bad guys, killing poor innocent civilians, because then other Countries might not like us anymore (like they like us now?). Then the United Nations might pass a resolution condemning us for trying to win, and we can't have that, because we really care what the United Nations thinks of us, so we might as well go on fighting with our hands tied behind our backs. If we were to refight WW-II today, we could never pull off D-Day again, the media would be on the beaches counting the dead bodies, and questioning why we got involved at all. Unfortunately, I believe we're going to have to wait until we get attacked again, before we decide it's time to really go to War!! Then all bets are off!! I just hope that they don't have to kill millions of Americans for us to finally wake up.
Timothy L. Pennell| 10.3.11 @ 9:47AM
I care NOTHING about what the Media thinks. I care LESS, about the UN, and their Infantile Resolutions.
I care about OUR TROOPS.
A MILLION lives were saved, by the use of the Atomic Bomb. How many Americans, would have never been born, had we NOT used them, and, instead, did the more Humane thing, with an Invasion? How many future FATHERS would have been LOST? At LEAST 100,000.
If we do it MY WAY, you won't have to worry, so much, about US being killed by THEM.
THEM will be DEAD.
Trinacria| 10.3.11 @ 4:06PM
TLP,
I LOVE YOU, MAN!
shermbodius rides again!| 10.3.11 @ 2:53PM
Outstanding and spot on.
Mike W| 10.3.11 @ 9:49PM
This post is almost too stupid to respond to. This is what happens when conservatives let their intellect atrophy and then lose their ability for critical thinking.
Your plan would create 1000 terrorists for everyone that you killed.
chuck| 10.3.11 @ 10:50PM
No..............it would kill them by the thousands, thereby eliminating thousands of potential terrorists!
Timothy L. Pennell| 10.4.11 @ 6:20AM
This is what IDIOTS always say.
"Don't do anything that's gonna make'em mad. You'll create more Terrorists."
It was guys, like this IDIOT, who wanted us to "Get Along" with the Soviet Union. Who, protested, and fought against Building up our Nuclear Capabilities, Reagan's 600 Ship Navy, the Abrams Tank, going in to Grenada, and Panama, and throwing Saddam out of Kuwait.
I'm sure that Mike will find solace, as he reads his Koran. (Just in case)
He probably reads it, sitting next to his "Better RED than DEAD" Placards, that he used to carry around, in days gone bye.
Pathetic.
Rust Belt Ronnie| 10.3.11 @ 11:24PM
Somebody should mention here that it is the duty of Congress to declare this kind of war and so far they have chosen not to do so!
Ret. Marine| 10.3.11 @ 7:27AM
One important factor you left behind there Mr. Babbin, this is a spiritual war, its as plain as your nose on your face. These people, some call terrorist, I maintain terror is a tactic, not an operational strategy, are commonly called islam's faithful, mujahadeem/holy wariors, or in plain speak, the devils diciples. Their long goals are far different than ours, they are the followers of the 1,000 years of revenge. None of this matters to a war weary citizenry of these United States, and that there is the problem. How can We the Patriots possibly defeat an enemy that our so called leaders refuse to name, who refuse to place them at the square root of the entire problem, it is not a war for the hearts and minds of the followers of islam, they are simply following the marching orders of the faithful and their version of a religion, through the guidance of the followers/ quran, or holy book. , it is the hearts and minds of We the Patriots who's hearts are being forced to harden, through a lack of resolve in our leadership, this wack-a-mole, as you call it serves to remind our own We the People of the inherent dangers that awaits the entire world by the followers of the religion of pieces bent upon world dominance, through forces they deem necessary.
Your question " how, gentleman, how can we "win the future" if we first do not secure it? Good question but that's not the real question you should have asked, how about this as a replacement, we know islam is the problem, islam is islam, there are no moderates, a western manmade assumption but not a fact in islam, why do we allow this infiltration of an ideology similiar to that of the nazi' 1,000 year riech into this country when they have always told us of their intentions, their continual involvement with their sub-groups linked to CAIR, NAIS, etc. their often verbal subversion, their lying of the primary goal of islam, killing of the innocence for political gain and favors, to all infidels, by extension anyone who is not muslim, when we did not allow for the sedition to take place during the initial planning of war for the very reeason given by the germans, japanese, or itialy's facsist brothers? This wack -a-mole strategy will never insure a victory, they simple replace their leadership with others, we continue to make more drones, send our treasure, our young and brave to lands where we are neither accepted as Christians, or wanted to be killed and maimed for the sole purpose of nation building, why?
I am a vereran of many, many ingagements and I say and will note, they, muslims, have resolve, our leaders not so much. Up to and with the point that islam itself is the real danger and fault of its cult members as the main problem, you have no arguement or excuse to name names and the very people responsible for the war we are currently in. Put the blame squarelt on those who are reponsible for it, not a strategy of how it is going to end, what it will take to end it or if it ever does end in favor of freedom loving peoples the world over.
RJ| 10.3.11 @ 10:20AM
How does a veteran, a combat veteran, see this present leadership? For me, I see baby boomers who did all they could to avoid military service. Further, I see those who got deferments and entered our educational systems advocating anti-government positions, mirroring neo-communist ideologies and strategies for the following generations. I see a "feminization" as a naitonal reality in our government, such as our military being forced to marry our peace corps, etc.
You want to defeat those who wish to kill and defeat us? Ok, begin by cleaning house as best we can while promoting an active and effective defensive armoring for our country. Muslims have asked for this fight, especially by not taking out those "radicals" within their belief system; kinda like that neighbor down the street with the rabid mean dog who is let out to run up and down the property growling at every passer by only to be stopped by the see through chain link fence from tearing up neighbors. China and North Korea come to mind, don't they?
There's a reason we have definitions for every word we know. Surrender has a definition, victory too. As does passive aggressive, and leading from behind. Metrosexual means something, right?
Obama-Mao is a reality. Ne0-Marxist is my definition. Yours?
TrueBlue| 10.4.11 @ 1:02PM
I might possibly believe the "moderates" are what they claim, if they'd bother with a better facade. All they ever do is proclaim that they don't support the fanatics, but they never actually come out and publically denounce them or their actions.
Why? Because they know that kind of statement would make them targets too... that or because the people in this country, and the EU, believe such talk and won't actually stop them from supporting the fanatics financially, or hiding them in their own homes/mosques. Those are some really moderate folks...
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.3.11 @ 7:48AM
Mr. Babbin
I see three forks in the immediate future.
I have utilized "future fiction" to examine them.
You really need to read my book. "America Alone Said No" inspired of course by "America Alone" by Mark Steyn.
amazon.com has now released it, or you can buy it off my blog-site.
www.txbooks.blogspot.com
Dai Alanye | 10.3.11 @ 2:47PM
Or you can read a book by someone who doesn't pretend he has all the answers.
http://alanye.com/
Beau Blotz| 10.3.11 @ 8:24AM
Being born on US territory doesn't make you an American or necessarily a citizen. (I'm not referring to "birthright citizenship"). This terrorist devil hated this country and actively worked to kill Americans and subvert the American culture and governing system. This vermin renounced his claim to citzenship by these actions and certainly exhibited no trait or belief in anything American and deserved no such consideration. He was a traitor and the enemy. You take them out and discuss the rest rest after the mission is accomplished. Unlike Johnny bin Walker this guy was not captured on a battlefield, but was hunted down and terminated in the company of other terrorist leaders as the dangerous mudering evil he was. Good riddance.
JP| 10.3.11 @ 8:28AM
I completely agree with Mr. Babbin in that our strategy is akin the Bill Murray character in Caddyshack (Licensed to kill gophers by the government of the United Nations). We can thank the former President Bush partially for this mess we find ourselves.
One thing is for sure: our elites haven't a clue what to do next. On the one hand, the so-called Neo-Con solution of invasion, nation building, and spending huge sums of money is what we currently do. On the other, the isolationist ideas of ignoring the terrorists is not much of an idea, as one can argue that that kind of thinking lead directly to 9/11. The terrorists are not going away, and as Atta so brilliantly showed us - they only have to be successfull once.
What is needed are fresh approaches. But, we all know that most of our security elites love abstractions far too much. The question remains, is there anyone out there that possesses ideas grounded in reality. And we must not forget the political dimensions. Presidents usually do not like open ended engagements that have no end in sight.
One possible solution is to ressurect the thinking, attitudes, and skillcraft of the old Cold War Era. We do not have to fight this war before the cameras of CNN. Much of the Cold War was fought in the shadows of Berlin, Prague, and Budapest. We weakened the Soviets from within through a million pin-pricks. Whether it was Radio Free Europe or through building up dissident cells in East Germany, Moravia, or the Ukraine, our agents and spec ops people kept up a relentless drive to aid and abett political and social action. Almost all of it was under the radar.
Iran, of course is the big enchalada. But, then there is also Saudi Arabia and its exportation of Wahnabist theology. Add in Iranian proxies in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Indonesia and it is any wonder they haven't been more successfull. Turkey is also a new player (as in Pakistan, Sudan, and Somalia). We should also mention the Chicoms support of radical jihadist.
I'm not so sure that Bismarckian realpolitik will work anymore. But, we no longer have the financial resources to outright fight the jihadists in every corner of the globe. And yes, there are dangers of using the cloak and dagger approach. Colonel North and Admiral Poindexter illustrated what can go wrong with such ops. Congressional approval is a must. But, do we have the politicians today that can put politics aside and keep thier traps shut? The daily leaks out of Langley and the DOD circa 2004-2007 indicate that we may no longer have the political will necessary to fight such a conflict.
We are running out of options. A new strategy is needed ASAP.
loulou| 10.3.11 @ 10:01AM
I blame Bush completely for the mess we're in. He kept repeating, "Islam is a religion of peace" after 9/11.
He had a golden opportunity to make the US inhospitable to Muslims and instead he opened the door even wider. Check out debbieschlussel.com and see how Muslim immigration has increased thanks to Bush and Obama.
RJ| 10.3.11 @ 11:22AM
Loulou,
Sorry, it was Ali, the former boxer, who stood upon the stage for the concert honoring New Yorkers and America right after 9/11 who muttered "Islam is a religion of peace!" this rotten and phony phrase first to the American people. Watch the tape, it's available.
As to Bush: He was more interested in getting up on "his cross" next to his beloved Jesus, than telling it like it really is...note his "compassionate conservative" game plan, etc. Read Rumsfeld's book for further insights.
Obama is an evil person, he is intending to bleed America of our wealth via any method he can, crush our economic system, "get even with Whitey" while creating a new class of "bond slaves" who will work in his fantasy world of "neo-Marxism" dreams.
Remember how Obama-Mao loved the call to prayer he heard as a young metrosexual boy overseas?
Know your enemy! Bush was very limited in his perspective and made tragic errors.
None of which compares to the evil Obama-Mao has put in place!
PolishKnight| 10.3.11 @ 5:17PM
As Mark Steyn has observed, the "war on terror" was largely being won back in the 1970's when most countries were modernizing. There was even a fear that they would be overwhelmed by Western culture. Remember those days? In some ways, that's still the case except modern Western culture is self-hating Hollywood leftism.
Consider: While Islam may have hated the west, they secretly admired it with the jet-setting lifestyle, the fun places to go and things to do. It was a form of "terrorism" to them.
Now flash forward and we are living in a Soviet style hellhole with us having to strip naked and get groped to get on a plane, political correctness, high taxes and a rotten economy, etc. If the goal was to make the west LESS desirable while spreading Islam, then they're "winning" as Charlie Sheen would put it.
Sad to say, there's not much we can do even if we had the political will. The left thrives on anti-americanism, European self-hatred, and non-white immigration. The right is too weak to do anything about it. It's hard to go to the polls and pull the lever for, who now? Romney and his H1B program? when they are so weak willed most of the time.
George Mapp | 10.3.11 @ 9:10AM
Drones are spreading exponentially around the world. Every country wants them or has already got them, and if the already have them the want more. They border US borders and soon to come to an American city near you! Probably just surveillance at first and then more than likely they will become weaponized to shoot taser's and live rounds and possibly even hellfire missiles at crowds and demonstrations like Occupy Wall Street.
One thing is for certain, with Petraeus at the helm of the CIA run drone program and his abundant military experience, the drone strikes will continue and at a much increased level. Now, if the drone strikes continue to become more precisioned, this will reduce blowback and Anti-American sentiment by default. By hitting targets precisely as opposed to 30 innocent civilians, that is much better. Also, if a drone is downed then there is no loss of life. Unlike the thousands of troops that are costing taxpayers $trillions of dollars to pay for 10 year wars. My biggest qualm with the entire drone campaign is policing. Who determines who will live and die, who is an American citizen or 'not really' an American citizen? Who is in charge of our privacy when the surveillance drones are flying above the US skies? The DoJ, the CIA, FBI, the NYPD who have 2,000 camera's and getting a 1,000 more and have inquired with the FAA about getting drones above NYC! Who is in control and who is accountable? Right now the CIA drone program is supposed to be a covert op and no one knows who is handling the joystick. In a ground war we know who fires a rifle, who is shooting a missile from an Airforce fighter jet etc.
Stuart Koehl| 10.3.11 @ 11:54AM
Breathe deeply, George. Anyone can build the air vehicle component of a UAV system; it's just a model airplane, after all. It's all the other stuff that's hard--the ground control station, the data links, the navigation systems, the sensors and sensor interfaces--that drive up the cost and complexity, putting effective armed UAVs out of the reach of lone wolves and even most terrorist organizations. Only state actors have the resources to build or buy, and operate, effective UAVs.
Moreover, don't think that the U.S. will passively allow UAVs to violate our air sovereignty. We don't allow manned aircraft to do so, and since no people are involved with UAVs, we would have even less reluctance to employ lethal force to knock them down.
Having traced the UAVs back the source, we would probably take stern measures against the countries that either sold or operated them in our airspace.
PattyMor| 10.3.11 @ 9:12AM
The first step in winning anything, is to correctly define the enemy. Its Islam. There is no moderate Islam and no Islam extremists, just Islam. The religion is one of violence and conquest. Terror is just one tactic. The other is to burrow from within; same tactic used by the comminists. So we get CAIR, ISNA, MSA and other MuBro front groups defending their Religion and calling anyone who opposes Islam as Islamophobes.
loulou| 10.3.11 @ 9:57AM
They have infiltrated our country. They are embedded at the highest levels of our government. They hold positions of authority at the CIA and the FBI!!
We're not serious until we stop being dhimmis.
RJ| 10.3.11 @ 11:26AM
Loulou,
Don't forget those "progressives"...kissing cousins to the "communists" who have also joined in battle with the muslims against our country as "idiots who think they are wise" and will lead all of us to their promised land!
Good job! Keep up the right fight!
Stuart Koehl| 10.3.11 @ 9:23AM
Do not denigrate attrition as an element of overall counterterrorism strategy. Calling it "Whack-a-Mole" overlooks certain incontrovertable facts:
1. Talent, leadership ability and experience in any military organization are always in short supply. Killing, capturing or otherwise neutralizing top leaders means these men will be replaced by others who are less talented, less experienced and less able to lead.
2. The replacement leadership, being less talented, less experienced and less able to lead will not have the capacity to mount operations as technically sophisticated as their predecessors. They will also make operational errors that allow us to detect and foil their plots; the capacity for inflicting catastrophic damage upon the U.S. is therefore reduced.
3. The less experienced replacement leadership will tend to make the kind of operational errors that allow us to locate and kill them more quickly. They will be replaced in their turn by men who are even less talented and less capable than they were, so the cycle will repeat itself at an accelerating pace.
4. A concomitant of increasingly poor leadership will be increased casualties among the rank-and-file, thinning out the talent pool from which replacement leaders would be selected. New recruits will not have the same level of training and competence as their predecessors, further reducing the operational capabilities of the enemy.
5. All of this will have an immense impact on the morale of al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist organizations. If, in war, nothing succeeds like success, then failure tends to breed failure. Jihadis may look forward to dying, but nobody looks forward to dying for nothing. After a repeated string of failures, the rank-and-file begin to expect failure, and start to lose heart. Recruits stop coming in, numbers begin to dwindle.
You can call it "Whack-a-Mole" if you want, but if you are good at it, and keep at it long enough, two things happen--either you whack all the moles, or (more likely), the moles stop popping up out of the holes.
By itself, this will not defeat terrorism, because, if the pressure is relieved, the moles start popping up again. But it does help create the preconditions under which other methods (the dreaded "nation building" can begin to eliminate the environment in which the moles breed.
RCV| 10.3.11 @ 11:38AM
Thanks, Stuart, for that rational analysis. I'm delighted each time one of these dregs of humanity is blown away by a drone, and the strategy has been extremely successful. The fear that the next moment you'll be hearing that whirring sound before your death must make your "promotion" to be head of Al Qaeda-in-this-dump a mixed blessing.
Stuart Koehl| 10.3.11 @ 11:41AM
It would seem being "Al Qaeda's Number Two Leader" is the position with the highest mortality rate. They've been through a dozen or more Number 2s, which would lead me to ask if I could simply jump from Number 3 to Number 1.
Warrior | 10.3.11 @ 5:19PM
RCV: Weren't you and your liberal/progressive friends calling water boarding torture, want CIA agents tried for crimes and also thought Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be tried for war crimes? How can you and your fellow liberals now reconcile that with your pom pom waving and cheering of the killing of an unidicted American citizen without any due process whatsoever? So what you're telling me is that water boarding a terrorist is a crime yet blowing them up is something to be celebrated?
Before you triangulate your position, please don't make this an argument about what I'm saying as I have not critized the action or the result. Just seems tremendously funny that the candidate that was going to end the wars has extended the war to at least five countries and kills to the cheering of a base that is supposed to be anti-war. I guess we'll start to hear the liberal calling for crimes and charges when a Republican is president again.
RCV| 10.4.11 @ 12:16AM
No, I never thought Bush, Cheney or CIA agents should be tried for war crimes.
And Obama made clear throughout the campaign that he opposed the Iraq War, not the war in Afghanistan, and that he would be relentless in fighting Al Qaeda, which he has been, and with great success.
Warrior | 10.4.11 @ 11:52AM
So Iraq is still the wrong war for liberals? Water boarding is fine? Troops on the ground in Libya is fine? Conducting a war in Yemen is no problem? Killing an unindicted American citizen is no problem? Tell me, what evidence is being produced to show that Awlaki was a leader in Al Qaeda?
You liberals could care less about what a Democrat President does. God forbid a Republican President conducts the same actions with the same pretenses. At least I could have respected you liberals for having a reasoned position on these issues, such as being anti-war. I should have known better.
Stuart Koehl| 10.4.11 @ 7:16PM
Remember Ronald Reagan's words: "You can accomplish a great deal if you don't care who gets the credit".
RCV| 10.5.11 @ 2:34PM
2. In a war, you don't have to "produce evidence" against the people directing operations against your forces. You take them out, just like soldiers. But if you choose to capture rather than kill them, you ought to respect international conventions on treatment of prisoners, which precludes waterboarding. I'm with McCain on that one.
3. If Al Qaeda and its forces move from Afghanistan to Yemen, they ought to be hunted down and killed there. We're not at war against Yemen or its people, we're at war against Al Qaeda, which attacked our country
RCV| 10.5.11 @ 2:40PM
Whoops -- first part got lopped off:
You can make all the comments about anaonymous "liberals" and their positions, but I make up my own mind on issues and am responsible only for myself.
1. Some wars are necessary, even righteous. WWII was both. George Bush Sr's Gulf War was justified, and strategically brilliant both in planning and execution. The invasion of Iraq was a strategic blunder of the first order, because it empowered Iran, which is a much greater threat to Israel, our Arab allies in the region, and our own country than Saddam ever was. It also diverted us from the more important war against Al Qaeda. The limited use of NATO power in Libya was justified - Qaddaffi not only blew up American civilians in addition to his own people, he attacked and killed American soldiers in Germany. The invasion of Afghanistan was absolutely justified - Al Qaeda had physically attacked our nation and the Taliban had given them sanctuary to do so.
Occam's Tool| 10.3.11 @ 11:56AM
We just need to be doing it faster and harder. That's all. Beautiful as usual, Stuart.
Stuart Koehl| 10.3.11 @ 12:42PM
That is not to say that Babbin isn't correct about the need to confront Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia about their ongoing support for Jihad.
Sanctuary is one of the necessary preconditions for an insurgency (of which a terror campaign is a component) to succeed. The terrorist or insurgent organization must have a place where it can rest, recuperate, train, reequip, draw supplies and financial support, Either it's going to be in a contiguous country (external sanctuary) or in an area inside the targeted country which the insurgents have made their own (internal sanctuary).
Sanctuary doesn't mean the insurgency will succeed, but no insurgency has ever succeeded with out one.
We are doing a good job of eliminating internal sanctuaries in Afghanistan through the application of the Petraeus Doctrine. If we keep at it, soon al Qaeda and the Taliban will have no safe havens inside the country, which then heightens the importance of their external sanctuaries in Iran and Pakistan.
Covert military operations involving special operations troops and unmanned air vehicles can, to some extent, degrade the security of these sanctuaries (witness Osama bin Laden), but they cannot eliminate them altogether. And, although we can win despite the existence of these sanctuaries, they will make the process longer and harder than need be. Direct military confrontation may be out of the question, both politically and strategically (as Napoleon said to Ney at Waterloo, "Troops! Where do you expect me to get them? Do you think I can make them?"), both countries should be made to pay a price, politically and economically. Working towards regime change in both should be a long-term objective. If nothing else, they'll be too busy looking after themselves to bother us.
Nick| 10.3.11 @ 3:50PM
Mr. Koehl,
I always believed that President Bush should have destroyed a military target in Iran (e.g., an air base, a tank platoon, one of their few oil refineries, etc.,) in 2004, when we found out that Iran was supplying Muqtada al-Sadr's Shia Mahdi Army, and, thus, arming those who were killing our troops.
I'm sure Mr. Bush would have been attacked for escalating the war by the democrats, but, so what? I don't see the downside if the President had taken such action.
Your thoughts?
Stuart Koehl| 10.3.11 @ 6:00PM
An overt attack would probably not have been necessary. Oil refineries catch fire and burn all the time and need very little encouragement to do so. We could always tell Iran after the fact what happened to it. And since Iran has only one refinery making gasoline, that would be a pretty bad thing for the regime.
I also think that the critical path (the "tall pole") of the Iranian nuclear weapons program is the limited number of Iranian nuclear scientists. A few well-considered "accidents" could result in a mass exodus of nuclear talent from the Iranian camp.
But using military power in a naked display of force? How gauche.
Nick| 10.3.11 @ 6:54PM
Mr. Koehl,
I could have lived with that. I would never want to appear gauche. Thank you, for your response.
Mike W| 10.3.11 @ 9:54PM
The only problem is that Iran had nothing to do with 9/11. But I guess since Iraq didn't either then it is alright.
I read the garbage in these posts and I have no doubt that we are going to be stuck with another 4 years of Obama. Our side and Fox News are obsessed with the Middle East while Obama and his thugs are playing and winning at class warfare.
Stuart Koehl| 10.3.11 @ 10:42PM
Iran has been at war with the United States since 1979, and has been a major sponsor of global terrorism through all those years. They may have had nothing to do with 9/11, but there was more than enough American blood on their hands even before then to justify taking strong action against them.
That these raving lunatics also want to--and are well on their way to obtaining--nuclear weapons ought to be reason enough to give you pause. Muammar Qaddhafi was comical yet lethal; Iran with nuclear weapons is chilling. How do you deter the non-rational actor?
W| 10.3.11 @ 7:22PM
We could easily reduce the power of Saudi Arabia which funds much of the radical muslim madrassas, imans, and mullahs in the world IF we would drill for oil in the USA, specifially Alaska, the Gulf, etc., and develop our natural gas reserves like the Marcellus shale. Yet Obama and the Dems have prevented drilling in Anwar.
But even if we drill, how do we deal with Iran and Pakistan?
Iran is ruled by dangerous radicals who want a war.
Pakistan is not predictable. They were an ally for years but now we do not know.
Thom| 10.3.11 @ 6:03PM
Stuart,
The problem with your concept of counter insurgency is that is does not work in the real world in any practical sense. It didn’t work in Vietnam on a much larger scale with a much smaller population pool to win the hearts and minds of. When the NVA moved back into South Vietnam in 1972 they stayed until it collapsed in 1975. We killed the NVA and Viet Cong by the bushel over nearly a decade but it was almost always on their terms and they retreated to their external sanctuaries and regrouped to fight another day again and again. We went after the Viet Cong leadership as well. There were always more people to step in and take their place.
Our Whack a Mole model is a pen prick by comparison to Vietnam. The population pool from which to draw recruits is significantly larger in AF area than it was in the greater Vietnam area of that conflict. These people have a very long history of this kind of fighting. The Soviets whacked a bunch of Moles too and went home with their tails between their legs. Like us, most of our forces aren’t Mole Whackers. These people embrace martyrdom which counteracts much of the demoralizing goals sought here. The top leadership isn’t operational types. Killing Hitler or Stalin and their top staff people would not have made material differences on the conduct of the war. It took us 10 years to find OBL sitting in place in Pak for 5 years under our noses. There is a great deal of wishful thinking going on here. Too much thinking like this is some sort of sporting event where the one with the most Whacked Moles wins a prize.
The Israelis have been Whacking the Moles for decades in the West Bank, Gaza and South Lebanon. It doesn’t really have any long term effect on the overall situation. They expend enormous efforts and expense on this defensive strategy. 63 years and counting. The only time they get any lasting impact is when they put combined arms to work and whack a larger number of Moles and push the threat further from their borders. Still the Moles come back and the Israelis can’t pack up, declare a false victory and go home.
Short of a Roman-ese like scorched earth policy and dictator like consistency in our application of whatever strategy we are employing this quarter, we have seeded the initiative to our enemies and let them control their losses. Meanwhile the alphabet soup of terrorist organizations is moving into new territories and setting up bases and sanctuaries far and wide while we whack a few Moles in just one geographic location at great expense per Mole.
The Taliban/AQ types are losing a nominal 3:1 to our overall efforts in AF. Most of losses incurred on our side have been suffered by those Afghans fighting with us and when you subtract out NATO (and our) losses from this our AF allies aren’t doing too well. Remove advanced Western technology and the Taliban could probably take down native Afghanistan forces in a couple years. Take away the billions we supplement the Government of Afghanistan with and this will shrink to maybe a year or less. No country with an annual per capita income of around $1000 can support the size of army needed to continue this grossly inefficient and costly defensive counter insurgency method. South Vietnam could not afford to support itself and our weapon system when we left. 58,000 dead American GIs bought South Vietnam a decade of time of being Communist free. Nothing more.
At the end of the day Stuart, we will have killed a lot more of them but they will hold the ground and continue doing what they were doing before our visit in 2001 because they are the only ones fighting a “war”. We are playing a video game of sorts.
Stuart Koehl| 10.3.11 @ 8:25PM
On the contrary, Thom, it's one of only two strategies that does work in the real world, because it deprives the insurgents of the two factors that work in their favor: time, and the demoralization of the counter-insurgent.
The other strategy that works is called the "Hama Rules", employed by Hafez al-Assad against the city of Hama in 1982. It consisted of systematically razing the city and killing most of its inhabitants (estimates are 40-50,000 died), followed by a brazen policy of "never explain, never apologize".
I don't think that one will wash with the American people (since we're not barbarians and not ruled by a murderous dictatorship), so we are left with the methods that worked for the British in Northern Ireland and for us in Iran.
And, contrary to what you said, it even worked in Vietnam, when we cared to use it. I refer to the Marine's Combined Action Platoons, which consisted of a reinforced Marine squad embedded in a Vietnamese village. The Marines formed the villagers into a local defense force, which protected the villagers from the VC and NVA when they came to exact taxes and conscript villagers. The CAP program was wildly effective (especially when used in conjunction with the Phoenix program to eliminate communist leadership cadres. Areas in which CAP and Phoenix were implemented in tandem were quickly pacified.
Unfortunately, CAP was unpopular with the Big Army elements of MACV, not to mention with the South Vietnamese government (villagers who can repel VC tax collectors can also repel Saigon's tax collectors), so the program was terminated. A success, nonetheless. Also note that by 1972, the ARVN were able to hold and defeat the NVA without any support from U.S. ground forces, and could have done so again in 1975, had Congress not cut South Vietnam off at the knees and refused to abide by our obligations under the Paris Peace Treaty.
Your statement about Israel is plain wrong. Their targeting of Hamas and Hezbollah leadership (and the PLO/PLFP leadership before that) did succeed in reducing terrorists to impotence. Israel gets into trouble only when it listens to people who say whacking the mole does no good.
So, let me let you in on a little secret: the root cause of crime is criminals; and the root cause of terrorism is terrorists. Eliminating criminals reduces crime; eliminating terrorists reduces terrorism. Nobody, except a Chicago Cubs fan, enjoys losing. Military forces, even (maybe especially) irregulars who consistently lose suffer from demoralization, and eventually lose the will to fight. Terrorists and insurgents, not being subject to regular military discipline, are highly reliant upon charismatic leadership. And that doesn't grow on trees. Kill the charismatic leaders, and the grunts won't show up for the fight. A lot of the ones already there will go home. The ones who stay won't fight as well, and will die in larger numbers. Eventually, the enemy runs out of moles for us to whack.
Long before then, with the insurgency contained, it will be possible to build up strong civil institutions, good governance and economic prosperity to the point that the insurgents will have serious trouble getting support from the population. "Guerrillas are the fish, and the people are the sea", according to Mao. So, we drain the sea, or make it inhospitable for the fish, and the fish die. Most of the work-a-day insurgents, never deeply committed to the cause, blend back into society, and the few remaining die-hards either live out bitter, empty lives in hiding, or fall victim to a Hellfire or a .308 boat tail round from 800 meters.
Outcome: We win, they lose. Classic Ronald Reagan outcome. What could be better?
Thom| 10.3.11 @ 11:28PM
“Also note that by 1972, the ARVN were able to hold and defeat the NVA without any support from U.S. ground forces, and could have done so again in 1975, had Congress not cut South Vietnam off at the knees and refused to abide by our obligations under the Paris Peace Treaty.”
The NVA invaded the Northern provinces in 1972. The ARVN fought them “well” according to you. The problem is Stuart the NVA never left the Northern Provinces and the ARVN being twice as strong did not defeat them thus when the final push came in 1975 the ARVN being twice as strong folded none the less. If anything you say about our successes there were relevant at all Vietnam would not be a Communist state today and for the last 36 years. Success in warfare is not like an inning in a football game. We left the game ahead in the third quarter and lost the “game”. We will almost certainly do the same in AF and then you can give us academic war college reasoning for how we won “there” too but…. Every year a new crop of jihadist comes of age in that part of the world where birth rate exceeds our pin pricks by vast margins. In ten years of continuous fighting we’ve killed less than 40,000 Taliban in AF. There were 45,000 when we got there. If we were winning we wouldn’t have nearly 150,000 allied troops there now when we had a fraction of that used to chase the Taliban into Pak. It isn’t a .308 at 800 meters the Taliban fear or a HellFire.
“Your statement about Israel is plain wrong. Their targeting of Hamas and Hezbollah leadership (and the PLO/PLFP leadership before that) did succeed in reducing terrorists to impotence. Israel gets into trouble only when it listens to people who say whacking the mole does no good.”
You don’t know much about Israel covert operations do you? They have never stopped whacking the leadership of their terrorist enemies at every level they can succeed at. They just stop making headlines with their overt Hellfire attacks in what the world sees as civilian population areas. Whacking the Moles worked real well in Southern Lebanon a few years ago didn’t it? 34 days of continuous rocket attacks responded to by round the clock air attacks and artillery barrages which gave way to combined arms ground and air attacks to finally whack enough Moles to stop the attacks on civilian targets. All the Moles lacked were some accurate rockets to really wreck havoc. Maybe next time. Maybe they will use some of the Cong tricks next time with regard to launching remote rocket attacks and not being there when the counter fire artillery arrives.
As for COIN being the only kind of war that works, excuse me for pointing out the obvious. We helped counter one successfully in San Salvador; we help fund and supported one in Nicaragua. Who is President of Nicaragua today? It took three years of arguing “light” or “heavy” footprint in Iraq while the place spun out of control before the obvious was admitted and acted upon. We’ve been in AF for just short of ten years and have both announced our end date and started to withdraw forces. Those of our Allies that actually fight will withdraw even sooner. All the Taliban has to do is keep a presence and wait. When we no longer have enough ground combat presence on the ground again they will reclaim the ground. No amount of Predators and Reapers can cover the terrain required and discriminate friend from foe solely on their own. All this assumes we won’t have open hostilities with Pak in the meantime.
Sorry Stuart. You see victory where we were simply not defeated on the battlefield. Such victories are hollow at best in the minds of most rational people. If we won in Vietnam why do we have that black wall in Washington DC with 58,000 names on it? To commemorate a Free and Democratic Republic of Vietnam? As I said, warfare is not a sporting event. Cheap rhetoric “We win, they lose” is effective when not a shot has been fired and one side collapses economically from internal corruption and spending itself into bankruptcy. Reagan never the less had the wisdom to acquire the “goods” to back his rhetoric should that fail. Today we don’t have much more than rhetoric and between Iraq and Afghanistan my money is on we lose one outright. You said it yourself, a sanctuary is more or less required for a successful insurgency and Afghanistan is bordered by two and Iraq by two. Once we are out of these places it will be politically suicide to return under force of arms.
Stuart Koehl| 10.4.11 @ 7:29AM
"The problem is Stuart the NVA never left the Northern Provinces and the ARVN being twice as strong did not defeat them thus when the final push came in 1975 the ARVN being twice as strong folded none the less. "
If the Spring Offensive of 1972 was a victory, then a few more such victories would have seen the total destruction of the NVA. Even Giap admitted that 1972 was a premature attempt to move from the guerrilla to the conventional stage of revolutionary war.
The NVA were in the northern provinces of South Vietnam both before and after the Spring Offensive. The ARVN never ejected them, because it did not fit in with the U.S. negotiating strategy--don't blame the ARVN, blame Henry Kissinger.
As for 1975, it's easy to denigrate ARVN if you overlook that, for two years, the U.S. Congress had prevented us from providing them with spare parts and ammunition, and, when push came to shove, would not allow U.S. forces to provide air support against the final North Vietnamese invasion, despite our obligations under the Paris accords. Most ARVN units fought very well, but it's hard to keep fighting when you run out of ammunition, or when your tanks and aircraft break down for lack of spares and fuel.
All I will say about Israel is I know a great deal about its covert anti-terrorism operations, and how they reduced the level of terrorist activity against Israel to a fraction of what it otherwise would have been. I agree that the invasion of southern Lebanon was badly handled, but that was not part of the covert campaign of which you spoke. Subsequent large scale operations worked much better; Israel learns from its errors. Except for the one big error, which is thinking that you can negotiate with terrorists.
On the Mall we also have a big monument to World War II, which, if we wanted to put names on it, would have 416,000 names on it, so I don't get your point on that. Neither do I get your point on the Cold War; if you think it was bloodless, you weren't there.
Old Such and Such| 10.5.11 @ 4:23PM
Arguing about what happened in Vietnam is kind of silly. If we had never left we would still be fighting. It was a war we could never win. The Government of South Vietnam was riddled with corruption and lacked support from its own populace. The Vietnamese were fighting against what they saw were foreign occupiers just like they had against the Chinese, French and Japanese. This is similar to the situation in AF. The only people that can win this war are the citizens of AF. If they dont fight for it, then it will never happen. Doesnt matter what we do or how much money we send to them. Lybia is different because we only supplied a little help, the vast majority of the people doing the fighting and dying are citizens from Lybia because they want to. Military power only gets you so far. We should stop meddling in other peoples affairs and treat terrorism as a criminal act and bring the perpetraters to justice.
Stuart Koehl| 10.6.11 @ 2:18PM
Funny how everything "everybody knows" about the Vietnam War is false. Wouldn't surprise me if everything "everybody knows" about Afghanistan is false, too.
William R| 10.3.11 @ 9:34AM
Herman Cain agrees with Ron Paul's position on assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPQw1xkAEow
Stuart Koehl| 10.3.11 @ 11:39AM
Both of them are wrong.
Clint| 10.3.11 @ 12:09PM
Constitutionally Why ?
Stuart Koehl| 10.3.11 @ 12:53PM
Because al-Awaki had overtly been filling the position of an operational leader in a military force waging war on the United States. He wasn't just an imam (and for me, he was the imam down the block on Leesburg Pike), he was a senior commander, recruiter, trainer, coordinator and member of the planning staff of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
As such, he isn't just some American citizen abroad, he's an enemy combatant--and an unlawful enemy combatant, too boot. As such, he is a legitimate military target, just like Admiral Yamamoto in 1943, just like Eisenhower in 1944. His death was not an assassination, it was an attack on the enemy's command and control system.
Since Awlaki decided to take up the role of military commander, he removed himself from the sphere of the criminal justice system, and made himself a legitimate military target.
By the way, in World War II, there were thousands of American citizens who fought for the Germans, Japanese and Italians. Most (though not all) held dual citizenship and were conscripted into the Axis armies. They were treated no differently than any other enemy soldier. If they were killed, they were just enemy soldiers killed in action. If they were captured, they were POWs (I can't find a single instance of one being singled out for special treatment as long as he was captured in accordance with the laws of war).
Now, one of the Nazi saboteurs captured in New York in 1942 was a U.S. citizen. He was not remanded to the civil authorities, but like the other saboteurs was tried for espionage by a special military tribunal, convicted and executed--all in the course of six weeks. Note that this was not in Europe or Yemen or some other hole in the wall--this was in New York City, with the civil courts fully operational. The Supreme Court reviewed the use of military tribunals, reviewed the convictions, and reviewed the death sentences. All passed constitutional muster.
William R| 10.3.11 @ 1:04PM
Why hasn't the government released any of the proof against this guy.
Beau Blotz| 10.3.11 @ 3:53PM
It's is called video footage of his own statements.
Stuart Koehl| 10.3.11 @ 6:01PM
As the man stands condemned out of his own mouth, what kind of proof would you want?
W| 10.3.11 @ 7:27PM
Stuart,
He is not interested in proof or evidence, he is here only to criticize the USA. He would have preferred we arrested Al-Awaki, provided him with an attorney, maybe an interview with Dr. Phil, and then for punishment some anger management therapy.
Kill the enemy.
On this Obama is right.
RCV| 10.5.11 @ 2:43PM
These are guys are shills for Ron Paul, President and Founder of the AQCLU - Al Qaeda Civil Liberties Union.
Clint| 10.3.11 @ 5:24PM
“This is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts,” says Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), one party in a lawsuit seeking to prevent targeted killings."
Former New Jersey Superior Judge Andrew Napolitano disagrees with you, as well.
Stuart Koehl| 10.3.11 @ 6:02PM
That hardly matters, as I am right and they are wrong. The entire weight of history is on my side.
Clint| 10.3.11 @ 6:32PM
Your Opinion Hardly Matters Neo-Chickenhawk Bloviator College Teacher.
Con Chef (NB) | 10.3.11 @ 11:04PM
Jesus, I'd LOVE to know what YOU do to make You such an "expert" on all matters of national security.
Neo liberal, neo Chamberlain, web fingered,Alex Jones reading, Ru Paul fellatingwhackjob.
professorjoe| 10.4.11 @ 12:47AM
At least the Nazi got a Military Tribunal with an appeal to the Supreme Court, henceforth Qbama will be the sole determiner of whether American Terror SUSPECTS live or die. You all seem to agree that OB made the right choice in this case but what guarantee is there that he makes the right decision in the next one.This is a guy you call a Socialist,a Manchurian Candidate and an Obama mao(whatever that is) yet you have no problem giving him the power of life and death.
Stuart Koehl| 10.4.11 @ 7:30AM
Awlaki was hardly a "suspect", but I suspect that you're not really interested in facts.
professorjoe| 10.4.11 @ 5:08PM
Stuart, You've avoided the question, the REAL issue is not the Awlaki. DO YOU TRUST OBAMA AS THE SOLE ARBITRAITOR OF WHO WARRANTS GETTING KILLED?
Stuart Koehl| 10.4.11 @ 7:21PM
Ah, but he was not the sole arbiter--the entire matter was reviewed not only by the DOD JAG, but by the Justice Department, and a formal legal finding was sent to the President--after which he signed the executive order.
Frankly, I don't think any of that was necessary. Awlaki was acting as an enemy combatant, fulfilling a high ranking staff role in al-Qaeda. If we were fighting a national army--say Iran's--and an American citizen were on the Iranian General Staff, no finding would be needed to kill him: as a ranking member of the enemy's command echelon, he's a legitimate military target.
Which points out another piece of liberal cognitive dissonance: on the one hand, it wants al Qaeda members treated as lawful combatants under the Geneva Convention, yet at the same time, it wants Americans serving with al Qaeda not to be treated as combatants at all. Is a puzzlement.
Nick| 10.4.11 @ 10:40PM
Mr. Koehl,
Cognitive dissonance is too kind of a description for such people. I would call them ignorant hypocrites.
RCV| 10.5.11 @ 2:44PM
In a war, the Commander in Chief must ultimately make those decisions.
Clint| 10.3.11 @ 12:33PM
This Ia An Interesting Constitutional Issue.
Stuart Koehl| 10.3.11 @ 12:54PM
No, it's a red herring.
Clint| 10.3.11 @ 5:26PM
No, You're Just A Neo-Chickenhawk Bloviatin' College Teacher.
Beau Blotz| 10.3.11 @ 3:53PM
Everything is not a COnstitutional question, especially killing terrorists who want to kill Americans.
RCV| 10.3.11 @ 4:04PM
There is absolutely no Constitutional issue involved. The Commander in Chief has the power under the Constitution to direct military forces to take action against persons directing hostile action against American forces and his decision is unreviewable.
Clint| 10.3.11 @ 5:38PM
This Ia An Interesting Constitutional Issue.
"Civil libertarians and some constitutional scholars say what amount to targeted assassination of US citizens cannot be justified – even in wartime. What’s to prevent the government from killing terrorist suspects on US soil, they ask?
“The US Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar (‘No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law’), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections,” writes Glenn Greenwald, a former constitutional law and civil rights litigator,"
It will be interesting to see this further debated by Constitutional Scholars.
RCV| 10.4.11 @ 12:21AM
I'll leave aside the hypothetical about targeting a terrorist in the US, but the Fifth Amendment has no applicability to the killing of a combatant on foreign soil, waging warfare against the United States from abroad, regardless of his citizenship. None whatsoever.
Dan Hirsch| 10.3.11 @ 9:34AM
Other commenters have alluded to the difficulties with the Islamic "religion." This misses the fundamental point that Islam is not just a faith directing one to achieve redemption in the hereafter, it is also a political system, directing its adherents to change the political systems they encounter to conform to Islam. It's not a religion, it is a "politics." Nazism, Communism, Socialism, Democracy are also differing "politics."
We must recognize that, just as the Soviets tried, the Islamicists are trying to convert other countries into sympathetic islamic governments using legal and illegal methods. In this country we fought the Cold War and did do some internal housekeeping to rid ourselves of the Communist threat, pretty much.
However, with the islamicists, we are NOT responding to the similar islamic threat similarly. We are letting them misrepresent their politics as religion; and they infiltrate our states and cities with serious, quiet intent to changing our government, our Constitution to reflect their islamic beliefs.
And they will not tolerate any non-Islamic religion. Excepth in the short run, where they treat the "dhimmi" as Hitler treated the Jews.
Doubt it? Don't! It's a coming to your town, your schools soon. How about that nice mosque they want us to build and pay for at Ground Zero? Anyone paying attention?
Repeat after me, "Are you now, or have you ever been a follower of the Muslim "faith?" It's not pretty, but the other option is our own annihliation. Israel is the canary in this here coal mine! The islamicists are Israel-Firsters, too.
Don't tread on me.
Dan Hirsch| 10.3.11 @ 9:53AM
And another thing, if we are really serious about winning this existential battle, we could open up an economic front that would greatly limit the islamicists ability to wage war. It is very simple; remember how George Bush knocked $100 off the price of a barrel of oil? All he did was say, "We're going to expand our offshore drilling." The islamicists economic situation would be incredibly harmed by $20/bbl oil. They can barely feed themselves with $80/bbl oil.
Using the newly developed production methods for gas and oil in this country, we could flood the world market with lower cost energy, end the middle-east energy dominance, and re-pay our Chinese debt, all the while completely re-vitalizing our economy...
Naah, we couldn't do that, drilling for oil is yucky!
Screw algore! There is no global warming, but there damn well is global war on us by islamicist terrorists. And the people who say that fracking and directional drilling are evil, are the ones who say we need to be nice to the islamicists so they won't hijack our aircraft and fly our own civilians into our own buildings. Those against fracking and directional drilling are unwitting accomplices...
Don't tread on me!
P.S. Bush's offshore drilling announcement is how Michele Bachmann knew she could bring back $2/gal gas. She is right on that. It works every time its tried. Of course, the lamestream media types scoffed at that. Did you? DH
Stuart Koehl| 10.3.11 @ 11:44AM
Don's comments on using the oil weapon against the terrorists is spot-on. If we can drive the price of oil down to about $50/barrel, then Iran would have so many internal problems it would not be able to pursue mischief abroad. The same thing would go for Saudi Arabia and (added bonus) Russia.
The inability of the Obama Administration to think holistically and multi-dimensionally astounds me. They compartmentalize everything, and do not see how it all ties together; as a result, different parts of the government are working at cross purposes with others. But, then, I should be used by now to the government being unable to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Dan Hirsch| 10.3.11 @ 1:06PM
Actually, it's "Dan."
As to the Obama administration thinking holistically, I have to admit that was pretty funny. Actually very funny. This Administration cannot think holistically, they cannot think logically, they cannot think sensibly, they can barely get out two sentences without an internal contradiction.
Proof: How about trying to schedule Obama's big, big jobs speech on top of the Republican debate, and suddenly finding themselves running up against an NFL game, a Green Bay Packer game - remember BHO dissed them before the Super Bowl and some Packers, dissed right back...
I doubt you could identify a single policy decision that BHO has pursued that has not pretty much blown up on him in direct proportion to how much Obama content there was compared to Bush in the decision.
Check it out,
DTOM
W| 10.3.11 @ 7:28PM
Agree with Dan.
loulou| 10.3.11 @ 9:55AM
Why do Republicans and organizations like TAS host stealth jihadis like Grover Norquist?
Skippy| 10.3.11 @ 12:59PM
Alahu Norquist!
Oy!
Seek| 10.3.11 @ 2:35PM
Because they are willing to overlook his activism on behalf of Islam and focus on tax-cutting. They actually believe that Grover, as a Muslim convert, doesn't have any ulterior motives other than achieving less government intrusuion in the economy. They are naive.
Anthony| 10.3.11 @ 10:07AM
So Obozo allows for a predator drone to kill an American citizen, and the Ds in Congress all have their thumbs up their asses, not a word!!
This, from the same administration that had the most corrupt Attorney General in the history of America, Eric Holder, attempting to criminalize the actions of Justice Department lawyers in the Bush Administration for their cogent and well reasoned justification for enhanced interrogation techinques.
The left want revolution, hell yes, let's give it to them!! It's time to kick ass!!
Who Knows?| 10.3.11 @ 10:11AM
Trust but verify.
So, when it comes to whatever is the topic, one must pay attention to HUMANS who talk and who act in physical ways.
Ergo, over time, since HUMANS are defined by the ability to read and write, various individuals rise to the top by virtue of being outstanding in their use of WORDS or THINGS.
In short, the best M.O. is to read widely, and filter out the people who prove to be undependable. Liars need not be paid any heed!
Just as I have, over time, learned to trust and welcome all offers by Mr. Babbin, among the few “best practice” writers I now attend to, Michael Ledeen MUST be read. His “Faster Please” blog is even better than what Jed Babbin opines.
Here’s my off-the-top-of-my-head key “advisors”, in no particular ranking order---
Don Luskin, Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson, David Horowitz, Anne Coulter, the men at Powerlineblog.com, Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, Jennifer Rubin, Robert Spencer, Tony Blankley, and probably some others I’ve forgotten---but when I see their byline, I jump right to their gift of words.
Oh yes---Jed Babbin, included!
Keep up your righteous work, sir!
Nathan| 10.3.11 @ 10:21AM
I am no bleeding heart liberal and was reading National Review probably before many of you were born.
But understand this, when the defintion of "enemy of the state" gets expanded to mean you or someone you care about, and they get summarily executed on the basis of "we think", "we know", etc, without Fifth Amendment due process rights, remember what you all wrote today.
Tom Paine wrote in order to secure our own rights we have to defend the rights of those we hate. All of you tell us why he's wrong here. Rights are not for those we agree with, that's easy. They are for people like David Koresh. They are rapists and other dregs of humanity. Because as we saw throughout the 20th century, take away rights from those we hate, despise, dehumanize, and it won't stop there. Martin Neimollor was right wasn't he? They came for the communists and I said nothing, they came for . . . And when they came for me there was no one left to speak for me.
Celebrate this assasination all you want. But this man was by birth an American citizen who many people believe had rights. Summarily deprive people like him of those rights, however good the intentions (as we know the road to hell is paved with good intentions) and sooner or later the actions you celebrate will be used against you.
We dare not give this government or any government this kind of power. Go back and read the 1866 Supreme Court ruling where they said in no uncertain terms that war and national emergencies could not be used as a reason/excuse for trashing the Constitution. I challenge any of you to find any quotes from any of the Founders, the Founders that we as supposed "conservatives" draw our inspiration and ideals from, that support any of this or any of the actions of the Bush/Cheney years including the secret prisons and the torture and the abrogation of the governing document this country. Any of you, produce one. You probably can't. And if the Founders don't support this behavior, and your actions and attitudes here run contrary to them, then are you really a conservative?
David T| 10.3.11 @ 11:24AM
It is debatable whether Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. What is not in question is the fact that he was an enemy combatant and a fair target.
RJ| 10.3.11 @ 11:30AM
Sometimes, when the bad guy has you in his sights and his finger is on the trigger, one does not have the time to look up another's rights in his carry on dictionary. Then again, if we had been teaching our kids how to be critical thinkers and history buffs, along with math, etc...instead of the "feminization" of our educational systems where one's feelings dominate all other realities within the classroom, maybe then we would have taken a different focus on this "war on terror" etc.
Dan Hirsch| 10.3.11 @ 11:41AM
Citizenship ain't a birthright. It's a set of responsibilities and duties. Making war on your country, plotting and promoting the murder of your country's armed forces and civilians are not the acts of a citizen. Awlaki had abused his citizenship and was making a mockery of it.
Attempting to elide his traitorous behavior from the conversation of his destruction looks a lot like an effort to hinder our efforts at self defense. This is a technique suggested by the islamic political system (It's NOT a religion - it's a polity!) in the Koran.
Do you really mourn the death of traitors? Do you mourn rattlesnakes killed in sand boxes?
Wake up!
DTOM
nathan| 10.3.11 @ 12:36PM
Briefly sir, I'll tell you what I what mourn. I mourn the erosion of the Constitution in the name of "defending the country" an argument that as I said earlier, the 1866 Supreme Court in reference to Lincoln's actions which they did not accept and we should not be accepting now. Was this guy ghastly horrible pick a word? Sure. But did that justify abrogating the Constitution to act against him? NO. And keep justifying these kinds of acts, all of it, keep applauding Bush/Cheney as heroic figures, and again, don't be suprised someday when you wake up looking down the barrel of a gun to be hauled away to some prison in the name of "defending the country". Good intentions never justify bad actions. Act badly and you are bad.
And I'm still waiting for a quote from one of the Founders supporting all this.
Dan Hirsch| 10.3.11 @ 1:12PM
So do you believe in the crime of treason?
Sound's like you don't.
Citizenship is not a birthright. It has duties and responsibilities which you obviously think are irrelevant.
You opinion on this is wrong. Sedition and betrayal overpower a citizen's protections.
Don't get it? How about this, imagine a guy with a rifle and a scope apparently aiming a rifle at the President. Now imagine a Secret Service marksman seeing this in his scope. Should he yell out, "You have the right to remain silent...?"
If this is what you think, you are a boob. Or you are of a traitorish bent...
DTOM
Dan Hirsch| 10.3.11 @ 1:24PM
And I don't need a quote from the Founders to prove a simple, logical deduction.
Oh and if the Secret Service agent didn't take out the guy with a rifle because he couldn't read him his rights and arrest him, rather than shoot him, and President Obama WERE* assassinated would you be congratulating the agent? Would anyone?
You remain a dolt or worse.
DTOM
*I used "WERE" which is the subjunctive case of the verb "is" which is the proper case for instances where the action is "contrary to fact." In no way shape, or form, have I or do I have any interest or intention of any attempt to harm any sitting or past President of the United States. None, not any, not a single, solitary scintilla. I am a loyal citizen of the United States of America and uphold all of her laws and statutes as well as humanely possible. Capice?
PPS. I do think a couple of them are knuckleheads. Which is political speech protected by the First Amendment.
PPPS. If you are a Federal officer frowning at my post, I recommend you go look up Sean Penn or Alec Baldwin and their publicly stated preferences for the health of US Presidents. DH
Dan Hirsch| 10.3.11 @ 2:12PM
And if you are still reading National Review, have you not noticed the noticeable RINO shift of a lot of their editors and articles?
I take as a couple of key indicators as their support of the Harriet Myers nomination and their support of the Romney candidacy. I 'cancelled my own damn subscription' years ago.
You need to take a hard look at them. There are still a couple of conservative stalwarts over there, but they are becoming scarcer.
DTOM
Trinacria| 10.3.11 @ 4:44PM
And I shall tell you what I mourn, sir. I mourn the death of common sense. I mourn the triumph of liberalism over the instinctive act of self preservation. I mourn our diminished ability to discern right from wrong and good from evil. I mourn the loss of courage to speak the truth about those who represent mortal threats and to act with resolute force to ensure their expedient elimination. I mourn the shameful decline of a once-great nation that recognized the virtue strong leadership. I mourn the emergence of a citizenry that is so intellectually lazy that it would carelessly abandon its responsibility and elect a President who was demonstrably ill prepared and unqualified for the office (not to mention shockingly contemptuous of American ideals and, worse, American citizens). I mourn the absurdity of the now common idea that working hard and earning money doesn't entitle one to keep it, but sitting on one's ass and wanting it does. Finally, I mourn the fact that killing an individual who effectively renounces his citizenship, declares war on the United States of America, and participates in the killing of innocent U.S. citizens could be denounced as immoral. All great empires do indeed crumble from within...
VBMax| 10.3.11 @ 9:18PM
Amen brother (sister?)
W| 10.3.11 @ 7:29PM
How, specifically, was the Constitution abrogated in the killing of Waki?
Mike W| 10.3.11 @ 9:56PM
The man was a US citizen. An accused traitor but he still had rights as a citizen.
What happens when Obama declares Michele Bachman an enemy of the state?
W| 10.3.11 @ 10:06PM
OK Mike, what would you have done with Waki? Let's stick with reality and forget silly arguments to change the subject.
professorjoe| 10.4.11 @ 1:23AM
W How about trying him in Absentia? Get a court or even a Military Tribunal if he's considered an enemy combatant. They can pass sentence. If you want him you send a team if at any point he offers resistance you would be justifed in bombing the location. They did it with Bin Laden and the Isrealis did it with Eichmann who killed a million people.
W| 10.4.11 @ 6:11PM
You just don't "get a court order" to kill Awaki.
The court would appoint an attorney to represent him, there would be a trial, discovery, a hearing on the proposed punishment, appeals. Maybe ten years from now it might be over. And we would have to give notice to Awaki and his attorney that an attack is planned to kill him. Is this how you fight a war. Get serious.
Stuart Koehl| 10.3.11 @ 10:48PM
al-Awlaki was killed not for thinking bad thoughts but for committing bad acts. He was, in effect, a member of the General Staff of al-Qaeda, and as such as fully a combatant as any other general officer. His ostensible nationality or citizenship becomes irrelevant in light of his role as an enemy military commander.
Military commanders can be killed wherever and whenever they are found. They don't have to have a rifle in their hands (generals seldom fight in the front lines these days), because they do their fighting with their brains, their mouths, and their pens. The formulate the plans, they give the orders, they send the soldiers out to fight. They have no immunity because of this. And Awlaki was no different than Admiral Yamamoto in that respect.
So, let's deal with facts, and not engage in magical realism, shall we?
Buck Ofama| 10.4.11 @ 12:18AM
The rat bastard had dual citizenship. The goat-fvcking pile of camel sh|t was an ENEMY COMBATANT, so FVCK him with a Sidewinder.
Stuart Koehl| 10.4.11 @ 7:31AM
He'd have to be flying for a Sidewinder to do any good. A Hellfire leaves a bigger hole, too.
Simon Templar| 10.3.11 @ 12:18PM
You present the situation as if he was just on vacation in Yemen, liked to wear traditional Arab clothing, and the big bad government, for rather flippant unverifiable reasons, just woke up one morning and decided to have him wacked just for some 'kicks' and a few giggles.
The evidence of his traitorous, outlawish, and criminal behavior came straight from his own mouth and those he paled around with that recognized him as a leader and organizer of terrorism against the United States.
Occam's Tool| 10.3.11 @ 11:55AM
If Cain doesn't think it's a good idea, he will when his toes are in the office. Obama is right once per year. The Seals killing the Pirates, Killing Osama, and this one.
I had a job offer in the Department of Psychiatry at Fort Hood that I turned down. I could have been a corpse thanks to this scumbag. I cheered when they got his sorry scumbag terrorist ass.
Buck Ofama| 10.4.11 @ 12:16AM
Since the courts won't do it, then it's high past time to send a drone to kill the goat-fvcking mudslime murderer, Hasan, or whatever the fvck his rag head name is. Hey, he wants it.
JimH| 10.3.11 @ 2:08PM
As a Constitutional exercise, is there no concern that Barack might order these drones over Idaho in order to take out these right wing domestic terrorists we’ve been warned about?
Valley Forge Tea Party Patriot| 10.3.11 @ 2:12PM
It has been brought to our attention that someone on this forum is posing as a member of our organization, and attempting to link our organization, and the Tea Party movement as a whole, to Ron Paul.
Nothing could be further from the truth. While there are many things to admire about Dr. Paul, his service to our nation, and his political positions, and that some of our members are supporters of Ron Paul (indeed, various individual members of our organization support all of the GOP candidates) our organization has not endorsed any particular candidate at this time.
Additionally, it has also been brought to our attention that certain individuals, while posing as members and/or representatives of Valley Forge Tea Party Patriots, have regularly made offensive and derogatory remarks about individuals and religious/ethnic affiliations. In that regard, Valley Forge Tea Party Patriots would like to go on record and officially condemn this type of behavior as it is not representative of our organization, our goals, or our individual members.
Please continue to notify us about any future incidents similar to the ones that have been described. We take the reputation of our organization very seriously, and would like to protect it.
Sincerely,
Valley Forge Tea Party Patriots
http://www.meetup.com/VFP-TeaParty09/
Beau Blotz| 10.3.11 @ 3:40PM
Hear that Clint??
Drunken Sailor| 10.3.11 @ 4:51PM
He has been strangely quite today?
Clint| 10.3.11 @ 5:43PM
The Valley Forge Patriots' Organizer Dave Adamski Says You're A Damned Liar.
Show Up At Tomorrow Night's Meeting & Dave & I Will Get Up In Your Grill & Call You A Liar To Your Ugly Mug,You Creepy Fixated Bastard.
You're Scared Of The Tea Party & Our Co-Favorite Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul.
Hear That Dr.Reich & Blotzo ?
Dick Nome| 10.3.11 @ 8:51PM
Reacted just like he said you would. You need to get a grip on yourself. Threats and insults don't get it.
Clint| 10.3.11 @ 10:07PM
Get Bent Israel Firster.
You Clowns Don't Own This Website Anymore.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Con Chef (NB) | 10.3.11 @ 11:06PM
Yeah. Because "Turner Diaries" reading inbred meth head shithooks like you are really representative of the Tea Party. You've been repuditaed, Clit. My next guess would be that this organization you claim to be a member of will drum your ass out for the whackjob that you are.
Clint| 10.3.11 @ 5:42PM
The Valley Forge Patriots' Organizer Dave Adamski Says You're A Damned Liar.
Show Up At Tomorrow Night's Meeting & Dave & I Will Get Up In Your Grill & Call You A Liar To Your Ugly Mug,You Creepy Fixated Bastard.
You're Scared Of The Tea Party & Our Co-Favorite Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul.
Mick Hawk| 10.3.11 @ 7:15PM
Now I know who you are. You've been a jerk for a long time.
Clint| 10.3.11 @ 10:05PM
Get Bent Hawk.
What Are Ya Gonna Do About It, Israel Firster Punk Ass.?
Hmmmmmm Asshole ?
Con Chef (NB) | 10.3.11 @ 11:09PM
Oooh! Check out the cyber tough guy!!! I'm so horrified by threats from little boy in their mom's basement with chef Boyardee stains on their shirts.
And you wonder why no one takes you Ru Paulites serioulsy. What're you gonna do, Clit? Kick his ass? Yeah. Because that's what REAL Tea Party members do!!! What a joke you are, Palestine Fister.
Intelligent Design| 10.3.11 @ 2:21PM
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is in Israel today, warning Israel not to attack Iran, and telling Israel that Obama opposes withholding American taxpayers' funds from the PA (which in fact is the PA-Hamas, terrorist coalition). Per the Zionist Organization of America's Fall 2011 Report, the PA receives hundreds of millions of dollars per year from U.S. taxpayers. So Obama is making a very deliberate decision to fund terrorism. Repeat: The President of the United States is giving our money to terrorists.
Buck Ofama| 10.4.11 @ 12:13AM
>Repeat: The President of the United States is giving our money to terrorists.
Of course the rat bastard c0cksucker is doing that. Meanwhile, millions of dumb ass voting idiots pay no attention to this m0therfvcker.
Wayne| 10.3.11 @ 5:25PM
Who honestly trusts Obama with one finger on the nuke trigger and 9 more directing drones? We may today believe he only cares about killing terrorists, but do you accept his definition of a terrorists. Could the Tea Party one day be Terrorists in his warped world view? This is a very dangerous slippery slope, and the conservatives are caught defending it.
John786| 10.3.11 @ 6:06PM
How would you win the ideological war against the Islamists?
Maybe remove all American bases from ME- just a suggestion.
Stop all aid to all muslim countries - this is blood money. Of course this would have the same effect as my first suggestion.
Stop supporting apartheid in ME.
Just stop killing Muslims & invading, occupying their countries.
But heh what do I know . Maybe ethnic cleansing and murder is the way to win freinds.
Paul Kotik| 10.3.11 @ 10:17PM
Gosh, Johm, your proposal is an excellent paraphrase of Osama bin Laden's demands. Were you acquainted with that gentleman? Perhaps you should apply for his job. I think he'd have signed off on you.
Stuart Koehl| 10.3.11 @ 10:51PM
Well, Pat Buchanan for one thinks the world would have been a better place if we had just let Herr Hitler get all that Lebensraum for which he was hankering in Eastern Europe. No surprise then, that others would follow his lead in pursuing peace by having other people give up their land to the terrorists.
pdaly| 10.3.11 @ 7:56PM
Nathan @10:21am speaks plainly and elegantly.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything:
"Celebrate this assasination all you want. But this man was by birth an American citizen who many people believe had rights. Summarily deprive people like him of those rights, however good the intentions (as we know the road to hell is paved with good intentions) and sooner or later the actions you celebrate will be used against you.
We dare not give this government or any government this kind of power. Go back and read the 1866 Supreme Court ruling where they said in no uncertain terms that war and national emergencies could not be used as a reason/excuse for trashing the Constitution. "
Mary, a lawyer writing at www.emptywheel.net has another important point to add.
wrt to the question, "If the President declares a US citizen an 'enemy combatant', does that person lose his Constitutional rights ?"
Mary's answer:
"No. Someone has to actually be – fact based – a combatant to end up being covered under the laws of war as a combatant. If they are a uniformed member of an entity against whom the US Congress has declared war, they can be taken as a POW on or off an active battlefield. If they are not uniformed, but they are an actual combatant (Milligan, for example, was blowing things up himself) and they are captured on an active battlefield (defined by the US courts to mean a place where US troops are actively engaged in battle and no courts are open and operating) then they can be subjected to a different kind of commission, a commission of necessity established based on the lack of an operating judicial system with jurisdiction. If they are an actual combatant but not a member of an entity against whom the US Congress has declared war (and AQAP, created in 2009, isn’t such an entity) and they are not on what the US courts called a battlefield and what Goldsmith /Brennan are NOW redefining as a “hot” battlefield (so as to still use “battlefield” rationale on locales that are otherwise excluded from the legal definition of battlefield) then they can still be subject of a capture (or kill) operation if they pose an imminent threat of danger to “the US” (i.e., it is an “absolute necessity” for self defense purposes to kill them).
The last such act would still be an act of belligerency/war (using military assets to kill someone in foreign country with whom we are not at war) absent the consent of that country to our military action within their borders. Although now Goldsmith is apparently positing that instead of consent being an additive element that is needed to keep the action legal within the country-in-question’s borders, it is a stand alone basis for legalizing the killing of an American by their government (i.e., Goldsmith is saying that if a country gives consent, there doesn’t need to be the imminent threat, even as he and Brennan and Hayden have re-defined imminent). fwiw, don’t know if any of that went to the heart of what you want to know or not. "
Stuart Koehl| 10.3.11 @ 10:51PM
Good lord, but this is inane.
pdaly| 10.4.11 @ 2:22AM
No, Stuart. You merely have spent too much time in Plato's Cave.
Dick Nome| 10.3.11 @ 8:59PM
Andrew McCarthy gets it right. The resy of you screwballs don't get it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....c-mccarthy
VBMax| 10.3.11 @ 9:37PM
What a brilliant legal mind Andy McCarthy is.
Great analysis. I learn so much every time I read one of his articles.
bluecollarbytes| 10.3.11 @ 9:28PM
Calling Islamic terrorism by name would be the place to start. Policy would be based on that reality and everyone would know it, providing fair warning.
When did it become unacceptable for western govts to argue ideologies by the way.
davelnaf| 10.3.11 @ 11:27PM
Yes, there will always be more terror leaders: homicide is too soul satisfying to jihadists and sometimes it even pays well.
But back in the good ole days, i.e. pre-UAV days, the living was a lot better...and a lot safer. The newbies won't have it nearly as easy; each one looking over his shoulder all the time, or looking up in some cases.
So, then, what's a sincere, homicidally inclined terror leader to do: plead the unfairness of it all at the UN? They might listen.
POST American| 10.3.11 @ 11:48PM
------Putting aside one front for a moment,
to take up another-------
Are we all noticing this 'on cue' uprising,
with French Revolution bravado-----posing
as 1776 -----while being scripted, funded
and, no doubt, directed by the foundations?
--and flying 'Calm--YOU--nist' banners?
All a strategy to co-opt the GENUINE and
widespread outrage over our ILLEGAL
'Federal' Reserve ---and the imperatives
of INTER--national USURY generally.
----LOL---- as we remember the French
Revolution was itself a creation of OTO
Masonry, and brought political terror
and mass genocide into the mainstream
pf political action.
Their role in the Bolshevik coup d'etat
and subsequent economic, social and
political terror ops is now a matter of
RECORD.
Anyway, all tooooo neat, as it just so
handily chimes in with FAKE Rockefellow
'Right' front op Ann Coulter's scare mongering book of a few months ago.
AGAIN, the 'daring' Coulter's an out n' out coward
on the subject of Globalism---RED China---TREASON and EUGENICS.
-------Bet Bill Maher even polishes her material!
Buck Ofama| 10.4.11 @ 12:11AM
The more dead rag head goat fvcking mudslimes... THE BETTER FOR THE WORLD.
Neville | 10.4.11 @ 3:12AM
I to Obama lost faith.
sirbourbon| 10.4.11 @ 11:05AM
"... I wrote about the unresolved legality of an American president ordering the killing of an American citizen such as Awlaki. I will leave it to others,..." ---Jed Babbin
How about the Founding Fathers? Some like George Mason of Virginian would not ratify the Constitution until additional protections from the new centralized government called federalism they had invented was further chained down. One of those chain links was the right for all person to have the right to a trial. They named the rights: Amendment 5 and Amendment 6.
Mr. undersecretary the question of the illegality of killing an untried American citizen was settled in 1789.
You are nothing but an obfuscator that is using an invented war on a political tactic (terrorism) as if that tactic was an army, navy, air force of a specific nation that has declared war on the US.
The same document that specified and high-lighted certain rights with a "Bill of Rights," also said that only CONGRESS can declare war AND the only branch with the power to fund war. So why are you defending an unconstitutional action by a president that most who blog at this site consider their political and ideological opposite?