Archive for the ‘World War 4’ Category
Intelligence-gathering operation used for lethal action, officials say
In the New York Times:
Under the cover of a benign government information-gathering program, a Defense Department official set up a network of private contractors in Afghanistan and Pakistan to help track and kill suspected militants, according to military officials and businessmen in Afghanistan and the United States.
The official, Michael D. Furlong, hired contractors from private security companies that employed former C.I.A. and Special Forces operatives. The contractors, in turn, gathered intelligence on the whereabouts of suspected militants and the location of insurgent camps, and the information was then sent to military units and intelligence officials for possible lethal action in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the officials said.
The story mentions that “It is generally considered illegal for the military to hire contractors to act as spies.”
Well, you don’t “consider” whether it’s illegal or not. It is, or it isn’t. If this was illegal, it should have been run by the CIA, which is where we want the law-breaking terrorist killers to be working.
“While no legitimate intelligence operations got screwed up, it’s generally a bad idea to have freelancers running around a war zone pretending to be James Bond,” one American government official said.
Well, these were apparently people hired by a DoD official, not “freelancers running around pretending to be James Bond.”
There is at least some speculation that the work brought some results.
Then there’s this:
Moreover, in Pakistan, where Qaeda and Taliban leaders are believed to be hiding, the secret use of private contractors may be seen as an attempt to get around the Pakistani government’s prohibition of American military personnel’s operating in the country.
Honestly, I’m not sure that I really see this concern as much of a concern.
NATO issues directive restricting night raids
We own the air with supersonic attack aircraft, remotely-piloted vehicles, and satellite-guided munitions. We restrict air support to our troops in combat with the enemy.
We own the night with night vision goggles, GPS navigation, and command and control that can tell where every allied soldier is. We restrict night raids against the enemy.
Among the public, night raids by international troops raise anger because of cultural sensitivities, said Hamid Mohammad, head of the local chapter of a worldwide student leadership organization.
“If a foreign soldier goes into an Afghan house and if they even search boxes of the women’s clothes, the men get very angry,” he told McChrystal. “This is the thing that creates problems for international forces and destroys the perception of (NATO) among the local people.”
Okay, make sure we don’t search boxes containing women’s clothing. And make sure to advertise the fact that we won’t search boxes containing women’s clothing.
THE Taliban have found a way to beat American airpower. And they have managed this remarkable feat with American help.
The consequences of this development are front and center in the current offensive in Marja, Afghanistan, where air support to American and Afghan forces has been all but grounded by concerns about civilian casualties.
American and NATO military leaders — worried by Taliban propaganda claiming that air strikes have killed an inordinate number of civilians, and persuaded by “hearts and minds” enthusiasts that the key to winning the war is the Afghan population’s goodwill — have largely relinquished the strategic advantage of American air dominance.
The column doesn’t really include anything new on the subject of increasingly restrictive rules of engagement, but I’m surprised to see it (especially with those lead paragraphs) in the NYT.
While we obviously cannot and should not bomb away without regard for civilian casualties, I also worry that we’re putting our troops and the mission at risk by over-correcting.
So why is Murdoc seeing so many search engine hits on this photo of a USMC Assault Breacher Vehicle firing a line charge?
A commenter tips Murdoc off to this story: Marines push ‘The Breacher’ against Taliban lines
Anti-War Demonstrators Use Unique Defense During Tacoma Trial
Two women were arrested and charged with civil disobedience after they used their bodies to try to block Stryker vehicles outside Fort Lewis in August 2008. The vehicles were returning from Iraq through the Port of Tacoma and were on their way to be repaired at Fort Lewis.
The two women, Patricia Imani and Brianna Herrera, admit that they lay in the offramp from Interstate 5 in an effort to block the Strykers.
Both women said they should be found not guilty because they had to protest and although it was illegal, it prevented a greater harm.
“We have an obligation to resist, not just a right to resist. That is what these protests have been about since we started to do the human blockades against the Strykers,” Imani said.
I’ve pointed out this jackassery a number of times over the years, including another time when the idiots were trying to prevent Strykers from returning from Iraq.
“People have been against this war for over eight years and the fact that people came out to resist these wars and take responsibility and stop the crimes of their government, those are the people who should be supported,” Herrera said.
Even if you try to translate that quote into a coherent and complete sentence, you should be left asking: Eight years?
Earth to moron: We invaded Iraq in 2003 and it’s now 2010.
Here’s her buddy:
“I think this is exciting and this enables us to show that this act of civil resistance. Breaking a lesser law is very important to uphold higher laws,” Imani said.
Murdoc wonders what these people have against complete sentences and rational statements.
The HC-130P/N, an extended-range version of the C-130 Hercules transport, flies over Afghanistan, Jan 8, 2010. Its mission is to extend the range of combat search and rescue helicopters by providing air refueling in hostile or contested airspace if required. U.S. Air Force photo
U.S. general: Taliban beaten in Helmand province
U.S. forces have driven the Taliban from most towns and villages in the strategic Helmand province of Afghanistan, leaving incoming troops with the mission of holding key areas and rebuilding the economy, Marine commanders say.
The problem with “driven” Taliban is that most of them have been driven into Pakistan. They are not “defeated.”
Still, it’s nice to see that some control is being regained. I wish we’d keep a lid on the victory talk, though. Or maybe it’s much more significant than Murdoc realizes.
Marines now control most of the major towns and villages in Helmand and are pushing the Taliban into remote areas where it will be hard for them to thrive or influence the population.
“We’re not taking a break during the winter season,” said Marine Brig. Gen. Joseph Osterman, who will lead ground combat troops in the incoming command.
Marines plan to launch an offensive to seize Marjah, the Taliban’s remaining stronghold in Helmand.
Driving the enemy into the hinterlands is a good short-term security solution. But it is not the same as defeating them. If we can buy time to build up the Afghan forces, great. If not, or if the Afghan forces simply don’t get the job done, there is no light at the end of the tunnel.
I fear that this talk of “defeating” the enemy will give people the wrong impression and create unrealistic expectations. (via Mudville)
Obama’s Approval Rating Dips to New Low
President Obama’s job approval rating has fallen to 46 percent, according to a new CBS News poll.
That rating is Mr. Obama’s lowest yet in CBS News polling, and the poll marks the first time his approval rating has fallen below the 50 percent mark. Forty-one percent now say they disapprove of Mr. Obama’s performance as president.
The article says that 8 in 10 Democrats approve, but his support among independents is plummeting.
It appears that domestic issues are what’s causing the lack of support, with 47% disapproving of his handling of the economy compared to only 41% approval. Only 54% disapprove of the handling of the health care issue, which means a lot of people haven’t noticed or don’t understand exactly how Obama is making an end run around the government to get it passed.
Surprising to me is that 52% of respondents approve of Obama’s handing of terrorism. Contrasting this are the numbers which indicate that people were more confident of the government’s ability to protect them after 9/11 than they are now. I don’t quite grok how a majority can approve of the government’s handling of terrorism yet are less confident of the government’s ability to protect them than they were after 9/11, but I haven’t seen the exact survey questions and I haven’t seen the exact numbers.
Meanwhile, We are getting the Change You Can Believe In, and we are getting it good and hard. Both links via Instapundit.
