#1
Interesting that Lind used what appears to be a photo of a member of the RLI carrying an FN as an example of "true Light Infantry." Excellent article by the way.
#3
True Light Infantry. Is that like 'true' blacks or 'true' gays? Not qualified if they're conservative.
It's a straw man argument.
Light in American military terminology refers to something Americans have had to deal with since '41. It's strategically light. It certainly isn't tactical as any grunt hauling a hundred pounds plus on his mule like carcass can attest. It's the ability to move a force thousands of miles with minimal strategic lift. Or in someone else's terms, the firstest with the mostest.
#5
Sad as the argument is, I'm reminded of the colonial wars when the Brits were up against French guided Indians. Roger's Rangers were formed as a 'light' force to carry an asymmetrical fight away from the red coated lines of riflemen backed by artillery.
Even with advances in sensor technology and air power, strategy and tactics have not evolved in nearly 300 years. The last real innovation was seen late summer in Japan, 1945.
Posted by: Sloluth Protector of the Weak7539 ||
12/12/2015 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
Scandal: The administration says there just wasn't enough time to send military help for the four Americans murdered by terrorists in the Benghazi attacks. Newly released emails show that's another lie.
Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta swore during congressional testimony in 2013 that "without an adequate warning, there was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond" to Benghazi.
Killed by terrorists in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks were U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
In a televised interview, also in 2013, Panetta, who served as the Obama defense secretary for nearly two years, said "you cannot just simply call and expect within two minutes to have a team in place. It takes time."
So the administration's official line has been that no help was sent because events happened too quickly.
But the facts are catching up with the story. Emails released this week by Judicial Watch show that a Defense official offered armed intervention that could in the official's opinion have provided help. "We have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi," chief of staff Jeremy Bash said in an email sent to State Department leadership. "They are spinning up as we speak."
We don't know what those "forces" were because the reference has been redacted. But they likely didn't need to have the strength of an invading army.
It wouldn't have taken much to instill terror in the terrorists. As noted by Judicial Watch, which obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information lawsuit, State Department Mission Deputy Chief Gregory Hicks has said under oath that even scrambling "a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced" would have prevented the mortar attack on the State Department annex and caused the Libyans to " split."
"They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them," Hicks said.
But military support would have drawn attention to the administration's failed Middle East policies. And it couldn't afford that in an election year.
So, it appears a White House decision was made to let the violence play out without intervention, then make up a lie that the attacks weren't terrorism but merely a protest over an anti-Islamic video that just got out of hand.
It was a tale that Hillary Clinton was most certainly involved in concocting. Was she also involved in turning down the offer of military support?
The White House has repeatedly denied a stand-down order given to the military response to Benghazi. But as the Bash email confirms, support clearly was offered -- yet never arrived. Did someone in the administration turn it down, or was it utterly ignored? Nah. She probably didn't get the 03:00 email because she was sleeping. Besides, she thinks the military is for losers.
Either way, the White House and the Democrats' leading presidential candidate look bad. It was Secretary of State Clinton's war, so she owns Libya and every disaster related to it.
#2
For starters, someone needs to ask former Congressman Mike Rogers (R), (former head of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) some pointed questions.
Perhaps one could begin by taking a look at the U.S. State Dept's no bid Benghazi facility security contract with UK's Blue Mountain Group. I doubt any digging will be done however, dirt on both sides the isle so to speak. In the end, Pub or Dem, it's a beltway fraternity.
#7
Now Hillary is basically accusing the family members of lying when they relate that she told them it all about an internet video. F&*king lying bitch
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/12/2015 12:17 Comments ||
Top||
#8
* Temporary consulate with security arrangements any 'sane' government official would have questioned, given the conditions on the ground.
*Repeated refusals to upgrade security by the Foggy Bottom Home for Questionable Ethics.
* FSO who was playing "Klingon" with the Islamist anti-Qadaffi forces prior to his appointment as ambassador to Libya.
* An annex facility larger than the consulate itself.
* Significant message traffic from the temporary consulate indicating reconnaissance prior to and the day of the attack.
* Unexplained pull-back from the area by local police.
*Initial refusal to respond by OIC of the annex.
* Lack of proactivity by the US Embassy in Tripoli.
One might think that everything was intended to be expendable from the start.
#9
Do not forget that the admitted reason that the Ambassador was there was top meet with the Turkish Ambassador for a private meeting. Since it seems likely they were talking about the arms flow from Libya via the CIA Annex to Turkey surrogates and then to the Syrian rebels, and since the mortar attack had a skilled registration on the annex almost immediately when it commenced, does the dual attack bear any connection to Russian/Iranian surrogates to make a point about stopping that arms flow? So many messy questions.....
The answers are likely based on four possibles, all of which could be linked together or considered discrete missions:
1. Coordinating the flow of arms to approved recipients.
2. Restricting the flow of arms (i.e., no MANPADS)
3. Stopping the flow of arms.
4. Monitoring/tracing the flow of arms.
My list of possibles from back then included, in no particular order:
Egypt (Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood regime)
Iran and surrogates
Russia
Turkey
Hamas
One of two possible Arab-peninsula countries
An un-named nation with ties to the US
Libya's then-rump government
For reasons:
1. Stopping the out-flow of weaponry
2. Resuming the out-flow of weaponry
3. Disrupting and removing a US IC presence in Benghazi
#11
My guess is that they felt it would be over before the military support got there and wrote it off rather than risk incursions into foreign airspace. Then those two CIA guys showed up and held them off the jihadi hour after hour buying the necessary time, exposing the whole thing.
From Daniel Pipes Middle East Forum:
The editors of AydÄąnlÄąk, a Turkish newspaper, asked me a number of questions about the shoot-down of the Russian plane on Nov. 24. I replied to the questions and sent in my replies on Nov. 27 but did not hear back. So, over two weeks later, I am providing them here, as I wrote them, in English.
As relations between the Turkish and American governments have worsened in recent years, Turkey's President Recep Tayyip ErdoÄan has sought improved relations with Russia and (to a lesser extent) China. With the shoot-down of the Russian SU-24 warplane, ErdoÄan has seemingly thrown away this option. Why?
ErdoÄan's aggressiveness has won him near total-power within Turkey, so he naturally assumes that the same methods will work on the international stage. But they do not. Although he had made some major achievements in foreign policy until about 2011, his record since then has been dismal, featuring worsened relations not only with nearly every state near Turkey but also with the great powers and even with the Turkish administration in northern Cyprus. Shooting down the Russian plane fits within this context of steady belligerence.
Do you think Turkey benefits from the shoot-down that compensates for losing Russia?
No, there are no benefits. I see only disadvantages. This incident marks a major reversal from the Turkish government's point of view.
Was it really necessary for Turkish forces to shoot down this warplane?
It was completely unnecessary. The Russian infringement was very minor, apparently lasting just 17 seconds, hardly a mortal offense between two states at peace. Also, air-space infringements take place routinely; for example, a Greek defense economist, Christos Kollias, has counted 6 infringements a day in 2014 by Turkish military aircraft â and the Greeks did not shoot a single time at them.
Perhaps relevant is that Syrian forces shot down a Turkish plane in June 2012, saying it infringed on Syria's airspace. This shooting may have been motivated in part by a desire to avenge that one.
Are the economic sanctions that Russia intends to apply on Turkey realistic?
Very realistic. Russia's President Vladimir Putin showed in the Ukraine crisis that he is willing to accept economic pain to achieve his larger purposes. Noting that Russia and Turkey are among each other's largest trading partners, Putin can certainly make life more difficult for Ankara, especially at a time when the Turkish economy has slowed down.
Will this incident hurt Russian relations with the West?
I doubt it because Russia is widely seen as the victim in this incident. Indeed, Turkey's NATO allies are concerned that, for the first time since 1952, a NATO member has shot down a Russian plane â and without due cause. They see this as irresponsible and dangerous; among other problems, it impedes cooperation with Russia in the skies of Syria. ErdoÄan has made Turkey a problem for NATO.
How would you evaluate Turkish-American relations after this incident?
The shoot-down adds yet another tension between the governments, on top of others such as Ankara's policies toward press freedom, the civil war in Syria, and mass illegal emigration to Europe.
What do you see as the long-term consequences of this incident?
The Russian and Turkish leaders' similar personalities suggests that neither of them will compromise or retreat, implying that this confrontation will have lasting repercussions. For the Turkish government, it is another major step toward economic troubles and its purportedly happy isolation.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
12/12/2015 13:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We should make note publicly that we will provide as much assistance to Erdogan as they provided us in 2003
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/12/2015 13:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
There's also the possibility that whoever decided to squirt off a missile was not entirely trying to help Erdogan out.
There's all kinds of opinions out there.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
12/12/2015 16:11 Comments ||
Top||
#3
There's also the possibility that whoever decided to squirt off a missile was not entirely trying to help Erdogan out.
[DAWN] SURVIVAL is the most fundamental directive hard-wired into the DNA of every species. So what makes young men -- and, increasingly, young women -- become jacket wallahs?
Clearly, it takes very powerful conditioning to overcome this Darwinian imperative that is reinforced by all major religions as well as by human laws. A desire for Dire Revenge is a strong motivation, as is hatred. A sense of personal and national humiliation can drive some to lash out in a suicidal rage.
A combination of these factors has been used by cynical people to indoctrinate others to lay down their lives. Perhaps Samson was the first historical figure to kill himself while bringing down the temple on the heads of his tormentors.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
SURVIVAL is the most fundamental directive hard-wired into the DNA of every species
Not personal but genetic. Shahids are like soldier ants.
#2
The Western political establishment, including but not limited to the left, learned to love the Taliban after 9/11.
ISIS is just a group of islamofascists the public is temporarily permitted and required to hate.
In the not too distant future Western leaders will be begging ISIS to enter negotiations. They will be offered political power, danegeld and symbolic acts of submission.
The West will subsidize, protect and serve some political entity ruled by 'moderate' ISIS elements.
etc etc
See Afghanistan
This is nothing but a farcical repeat of the 9/11 war debacle.
#5
The West doesn’t really want to defeat Islamic terrorism. It responds to terrorism while ignoring the ideology. And then it roots around for root causes that coincidentally turn out to all involve progressive policy priorities like economic inequality and global warming.The left sees Islamists as an anti-colonialist minority lobby rather than theocratic supremacists. Muslim Brotherhood front groups, like Communist front groups, are willing to use “useful idiots” on the left. But rather than forming a common front, Communists and Islamists hijack left-wing causes and make them their own. So, for example, Muslims turn #BlackLivesMatter protests into anti-Israel campaigns.
A couple of points. The West is not the left. The left are useful idiots to the Communists and the Muslims. Their agendas are similar. The left is naive in thinking that the theocrats are their buddies. Perhaps it would make sense to wage war against the left as well as the Islamics and be done with it.
Have you watched the news about President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton loudly demanding justice in the Laquan McDonald case in Chicago?
No?
Me neither. I haven't seen word one from the mouths of Obama or Clinton about any of it. All I've seen are tepid, tapioca statements from their spokesmen.
John Kass asks some very, very inconvenient questions.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/12/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
Protecting the party. In fact all the theatrical outrage (Zimmerman, Ferguson) was to get the base out for the election. It's an old political ploy, waving the bloody shirt. It still works, because man has not changed his behavior in thousands of years. In this case, nothing to be gain for the party to play that card.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Scandal: The administration says there just wasn't enough time to send military help for the four Americans murdered by terrorists in the Benghazi attacks. Newly released emails show that's another lie.
