Tag Archives: War on Terror

President Obama’s Broad Coalition of One

Obamaisispressconference

B.O.

With great fanfare and a nationwide, prime time presidential address to the American people, President Obama announced the formation of a “broad coalition” that would wage war together to destroy the Islamic State also known as ISIS or ISIL. Although few other details were given about the coalition, a senior administration official said on Wednesday “we are very confident that this will be a broad-based coalition with countries from the Arab world, from Europe, but also other key allies around the globe, like, for instance, Australia, which has joined us in humanitarian airdrops already in Iraq; or Canada, which has already put advisers on the ground.”

From President Obama’s “ISIL isn’t Islamic” speech:

First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. Working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions, so that we’re hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense. Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven. …

This is our strategy. And in each of these four parts of our strategy, America will be joined by a broad coalition of partners. Already, allies are flying planes with us over Iraq; sending arms and assistance to Iraqi Security Forces and the Syrian opposition; sharing intelligence; and providing billions of dollars in humanitarian aid. Secretary Kerry was in Iraq today meeting with the new government and supporting their efforts to promote unity, and in the coming days he will travel across the Middle East and Europe to enlist more partners in this fight, especially Arab nations who can help mobilize Sunni communities in Iraq and Syria to drive these terrorists from their lands. This is American leadership at its best: we stand with people who fight for their own freedom

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel outlined some more of the possible participants. He suggested that a “core coalition” would include the United States, Britain, France, Australia, Canada, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark. The 10 Arab “frenemy” states that committed on Thursday to the fight against ISIS included the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. The new coalition also includes Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq. At the time of the publication of this article some 40 nations had supposedly joined this “broad coalition” to defeat ISIS. But does that mean anything other than the provision of some thin cover for a nation still perceived as Christian raining down death and destruction (complete with inevitable civilian casualties) on what are in fact, despite Obama’s protestations, Muslims?

But tough talk is often very cheap. It’s only been a few days and Obama’s “very significant counterterrorism operation” is already a disaster and falling apart before it ever got started.

In less than a day after Obama’s speech, both the UK and Germany (despite their earlier saber-rattling and tough guy talk) announced they have no interest in actually actively participating in any Obama led coalition to go after ISIS’ main bases of power in Syria. France has announced that they will not participate in any land or air actions at all. NATO member Turkey abstained from even pretending to join the anti-ISIS coalition and will not let the US use their airbases to attack ISIS targets in Syria. And now the Saudi’s probably won’t either.

What Obama will get from the Arab League and the others will be some supportive talk, perhaps a trickle of funds and arms to the locals, and that’s about it. When Bush invaded Iraq three other nations provided troops for the invasion and 37 other nations of the “Coalition of the Willing” provided ground troops for occupation and nation building attempts afterwards. In stark contrast to that, Obama’s “Broad Coalition” in the end will basically be a “Coalition of One” with a few local forces thrown into the mix. All led by a Commander-in-Chief who doesn’t want to fight, doesn’t want to be there, and known for walking away from ‘red lines.’ One can already sense this may not go well. Chances are he’ll screw around with this for a couple more years without really accomplishing too much and then hand it over to his successor to deal with. We’ll see and time will tell. I hope he proves me wrong.

What does this quick collapse of his coalition say about Obama’s strategic preparation? Did he even bother to check in with the Brits, French, and the Germans before pledging his “broad coalition of partners.” Apparently not. It would  instead appear that The One simply assumed our European allies would quickly just fall in line with his newly proclaimed war on terror.

And what tactics does the President envision utilizing against The Islamic State? From the Washington Post:
[Campaigns in Somalia and Yemen]  have dragged on for years and involve far smaller and less-well-financed adversaries than the Islamic State. Although Obama promised a “steady, relentless effort” in a nationally televised address Wednesday night, he also said that “it will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL,” using a common acronym for the Islamic State.
Such a mission was not the U.S. military’s preferred option. Responding to a White House request for options to confront the Islamic State, Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, said that his best military advice was to send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants, according to two U.S. military officials. The recommendation, conveyed to the White House by Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was cast aside in favor of options that did not involve U.S. ground forces in a front-line role, a step adamantly opposed by the White House. Instead, Obama had decided to send an additional 475 U.S. troops to assist Iraqi and ethnic Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment.
Recommitting ground combat forces to Iraq would have been highly controversial, and most likely would have been opposed by a substantial majority of Americans. But Austin’s predecessor, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, said the decision not to send ground troops poses serious risks to the mission.

So, in effect, President Obama has rejected the “Afghan model” that was used to successfully drive the Taliban from power in 100 days. It consisted of front line Special forces  and CIA paramilitaries calling in pinpoint US airstrikes on targets as they moved and worked in tandem with local opposition forces to defeat the enemy. It’s a devastating strategy that’s proven to be extremely effective in the past. What a shame. It’s how we really should wage war from now on.  On top of that, an unnamed U.S. general also told WaPo the other day that defeating ISIS would be much harder than anything we’ve done in Afghanistan or Iraq. Great, just great.

If President Obama quickly waffles, loses interest, and walks away from this tough talking but shallow commitment as well, we can then rename it the “Broad Coalition of None.”

Hey Marco Rubio! After Boston Do You Still Want to Legalize Foreigners With Questionable Backgrounds?

Boston-Marathon-bombing-victim-John-Tlumacki

 Boston-Marathon-bombing-victim-John-Tlumacki

 

Senator Marco Rubio and his Gang of Eight, which should be renamed “Gangsters of Eight,” wants 12 million illegals granted amnesty, i.e. citizenship, because they’ve lived and worked in America for five years or more. Rubio knows many illegals have turned out to be violent criminals crowding U.S. prisons, but he is ignoring that as well as the fact that over the years many foreigners living in America have bombed America in an act of Islamic jihad like the two Boston bombers, granted citizenship right after 9/11, despite their background.

America welcomes people from across the globe, but leaders like the Gang of Eight seem more interested in grabbing immigrant votes than saying no to uneducated, low-skilled immigrants, as well as people from questionable countries where Islamic terrorism reigns.

Explosions At 117th Boston Marathon

First: Many illegals south of the U.S. border are proven to be low-skilled and uneducated, and that downs the American economy.

Second, the problem with legalizing 12 million illegals is many are violent criminals now filling our prison systems.

illegal criminals

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office

At the federal level, the number of criminal aliens incarcerated increased from about 42,000 at the end of calendar year 2001 to about 49,000 at the end of calendar year 2004–a 15 percent increase. The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years–about 27 percent. The majority of criminal aliens incarcerated at the end of calendar year 2004 were identified as citizens of Mexico. We estimate the federal cost of incarcerating criminal aliens–Bureau of Prisons (BOP)’s cost to incarcerate criminals and reimbursements to state and local governments under SCAAP–totaled approximately $5.8 billion for calendar years 2001 through 2004.

 

The next problem is assimilation.

According to the Department of Justice:

[I]n fiscal year (FY) 2010, slightly less than 1 percent of the 40,651 foreign national inmates from treaty nations in federal prison were transferred to their home countries.”

The DOJ says its reason for low transfers back to native countries is many illegal criminals cant speak English, therefore:

insufficient translation services may keep some inmates from fully understanding and participating in the program.” As a result, “Overall, [the Bureau of Prisons] BOP and [International Prisoner Transfer Unit] IPTU, combined, rejected 97 percent of requests from foreign national inmates because they determined the inmates were ineligible or not suitable for transfer. Specifically, from FY 2005 through FY 2010, the BOP rejected 67,455 of 74,733 (90 percent) transfer requests.

In other words, it pays for criminal illegals not to assimilate and speak English, that way they can stay in the U.S, on the taxpayer’s dime where they will be well taken care of, on the taxpayers dime.

The biggest threat is terrorism: We have foreigners, both legal and illegal from Islamic countries with connections to Islamic terror. Despite those threatening connections, the word “racism” has forced the government and Americans to express apologetic tolerance to anyone connected to Islam, even when they have YouTube and Face Book pages demanding jihad against “infidels,” whom they believe must be exterminated.

As a result, we are faced once again with terrorism in our nation committed by two foreign nationals from an Islamic terrorist nation—Chechnya.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

The Boston Marathon Bombers were brothers who arrived in America after 9/11. 26 year-old Russian-born Tamerlan Tzarnaev, the suspect police killed, has been a legal permanent U.S. resident since 2007. His younger brother Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, a 19-year-old, also reported as living here legally, was born in Kyrgystan or Chechnya. Before coming to the United States, both men attended school in Dagestan, which Russian journalists say contains an Islamism extremist insurgency. It is also reported the two brothers came to the U.S. on grounds of asylum and had difficulty assimilating and making friends.

But was it really difficulty assimilating or refusal to become Western, because their social media pages show growing anti-American Islamic extremism.

Just because some immigrants cannot make friends has nothing to do with Americans not welcoming people. Americans welcome people from all over the world. Those who do not assimilate do not want anything to do with this country’s culture. Those who say they do not have any friends after 10 years do not want friends and that right there is a sign that something terribly wrong with those individuals.

Were the brothers connected to Islamic terror? Yes.

Tamerlan’s Youtube page features Islamist terror videos by Sheikh Feiz Mohammad who “urges Muslims to kill the enemies of Islam and praises martyrs with a violent interpretation of jihad.”

In Tamerlan’s YouTube profile he states he is Muslim and doesn’t drink or smoke anymore because “God said no alcohol,” and he believes “There are no values anymore…people can’t control themselves,” and as a Muslim “I’m very religious.”

If this bombers had talked about purchasing AR-15’s and posted Rand Paul videos, they would have been incarcerated long-ago on the grounds of terrorism.

More Islamic terror connections: The Boston bombs are the same as IEDs used by jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Times Square Bomber used a similar pressure cooker bomb; bombs jihadists can learn how to build at home with instructions from the Al Qaeda magazine Inspire. But that doesn’t matter to the left-wing media who are disappointed the bombers were not “far right-wing American militia nuts” with Sarah Palin bumper stickers and reading NRA magazines.

For the left-wing media, it’s a huge disappointment to hear Islam is still terrorizing America when too many white men continue to vote Republican!

Never mind the two Boston bombers are white. The fact they are Islamist terrorists makes them off limits.

Facts are facts: These Islamic connections should have been a heads-up warning with U.S. immigration when the two men arrived after 9/11. The YouTube pages by these men should have been a signal to the government that these men posed a national threat, but the government is more interested in spying on innocent, law-abiding Americans, who, heaven forbid, may legally own firearms for sport, hunting, and protection from violent criminals.

Tolerance must come first above the security of American lives.

And Rubio still wants to legalize 12 million illegals? We must ask important questions to Marco Rubio and the Gang of Eight:

1. Should these two Chechens have been granted citizenship? They were from an Islamist terror nation with radical beliefs and became more threatening over the years. They plotted and bombed marathon spectators and then killed a cop in and high speed car chase.

2. Should America legalize illegals demanding citizenship because they live in this country five years or more?

3. Do Americans owe foreigners citizenship just because they demand it and Washington leaders need votes to remain in office until we watch their feet leave office first?

4. How many illegals waiting for amnesty in this country are violent criminals?

5. How many illegals from Islamic countries are living here with dangerous plans for America?

Thanks to vote-grabbing politicians, we don’t know until it’s too late.

Hillary and Obama’s 60 Minute Commandment: Cover Thy Negligent Ass

 Obama-Hillary one

 

During Sunday’s 60 Minutes interview, Hillary Clinton and President Obama morphed into one another while covering each other’s negligent asses.

The one-time presidential opponents, who tore each other to shreds during the 2008 presidential run, are now in a race to hide their September 11th disgrace and save themselves.

When caught in a lie, lie. And behave like two star-crossed lovers.

 

hillary obama umbrella kiss

 

Four years-ago these two progressive cutthroats went for the jugular, hurling  racial accusations and insults that make military combat look like a well-mannered “Downton Abbey” dinner.

Who really believed either one of these snake oiled, back-stabbing progressives during that farce of an interview? Both have thrown their own families under the biggest bus to save their own careers.

The entire 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft was a sham.

 

60 min

 

Kroft posed gentle questions, never bothering to put either cold and calculating bureaucrat on the spot for the obvious disdain and indifference  that caused the September 11th massacre of four Americans by Islamic militants.

Kroft’s interview enabled Obama and Hillary and helped them cover for each other.

The interview was nothing more than a left-wing love-fest by two people who obviously found the best plastic surgeon available and had their lips surgically attached to each other’s rear-ends.

Concerning Hillary Clinton’s term as Secretary of the State, Obama said:

Well, the main thing is I just wanted to have a chance to publicly say thank you, because I think Hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we’ve had. It has been a great collaboration over the last four years. I’m going to miss her. Wish she was sticking around. But she has logged in so many miles, I can’t begrudge her wanting to take it easy for a little bit. But I want the country to appreciate just what an extraordinary role she’s played during the course of my administration and a lot of the successes we’ve had internationally have been because of her hard work.

 

Take it easy a bit! Hillary avoided the press for months. The only time she spoke about Benghazi was to blame an innocent filmmaker for the slaughter. Because of Hillary and Obama, that innocent filmmaker was thrown in prison–where he remains–for exercising his First Amendment rights.

Not until last week’s Senate and Congressional Hearings, where Hillary was given a verbal concussion by Republican Senators Rand Paul, John McCain and Ron Johnson, did she finally open her mouth. And then Hillary let the world know it doesn’t make a difference to her that four men are dead.

It obviously doesn’t make a difference to 60 Minutes either, because Steve Kroft went easier on Obama and Hillary than a blue dress on Bill Clinton.

Kroft had one hour to grill the two and failed as miserably with this interview as Obama and Hillary did with Benghazi.

The adulation fawn-fest set the stage for both to cover each other’s behinds and dodge Kroft’s easy questions about Qaddafi, Syria, Arab Spring, while turning Libya into an accident.

Worse, Kroft facilitated both frauds by making the majority of the interview about the phony working friendship and a Hillary-health-issue. After all, what difference does it make that four Americans were massacred in Benghazi, we need to know if Obama loves Hillary and if Hillary’s brain is doing well? And its imperative we know why Hillary’s wearing those bizarre Bette Davis horror movie magnifier glasses: “I still have some lingering effects from falling on my head and having the blood clot.”

Just listening to this rubbish gave me a concussion.

Obama swooned:

I was a big admirer of Hillary’s before our primary battles and the general election. You know, her discipline, her stamina, her thoughtfulness, her ability to project, I think, and make clear issues that are important to the American people, I thought made her an extraordinary talent. She also was already a world figure…Hillary’s been one of the most important advisors that I’ve had on a whole range of issues.

 

Hillary adoringly said she and Obama are “very warm, close.”

You weren’t “warm” or “close” during the 2008 South Carolina Primary Debate.

Hillary in 2008:

You know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern.

 

Obama slapped back at Hillary:

I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes, Senator Clinton and President Clinton.

 

Hillary shouted:

I’m here, not my husband!

 

And who can forget Bill Clinton’s remarks to Charlie Rose about Obama’s lack of experience:

I mean, when’s the last time we elected a president based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running? I mean, he will have been a senator longer by the time he’s inaugurated, but essentially once you start running for president full time you don’t have time to do much else.

 

Measure those comments to Hillary’s 60 Minutes kiss-up to the man who stole her chances at being president.

Hillary:

[W]hen I got to Chicago and he [Obama] asked me if I would consider being his secretary of state, I immediately said, ‘Oh, Mr. President, there’s so many other people. Let me give you some other names.’ Because it just took me by surprise…And he kept saying, ‘Well, I want you to think about it again…’ I’ll tell you what I finally thought. I thought, ‘You know, if the roles had been reversed. And I had ended up winning. I would have desperately wanted him to be in my cabinet. So if I’m saying I would have wanted him to say yes to me, how am I going to justify saying no to my president?’ And it was a great decision, despite my hesitancy about it.

 

We can heave a sigh of relief! Had Hillary won the 2008 presidency, events in Washington and Benghazi would still be the same.

And we can relax knowing Hillary and Obama have some emotions concerning the four massacred men.

Hillary told Kroft she “deeply regrets what happened to those men,” whom she and Obama ignored. Benghazi has made Obama “realize what makes a team succeed and fail.”

I feel much better now. Benghazi is explained and finally solved!

America, we need not ask further questions about why four men were left begging for help while being slaughtered. We don’t need answers telling us why those men never received aid or answers to their pleading calls to the president and State Department.

Just knowing Hillary feels “regret” in her lingering blood clotted mind, and Obama understands “failure and success,” should tell Americans: Stop worrying about security and military might. Just move on and get over Benghazi. Our backs are covered by “thoughtful” and “warm” people who have enough “stamina” to fail us successfully.

The Cost of Bargaining with Al Qaeda

FDNY Ground Zero

Imagine a street in a city in Pakistan. There is a marketplace nearby, and there are women and children going about their daily business, buying food and other goods. The only arguments are between customers and vendors, but they are not mean-spirited – just the typical bargaining on prices. Suddenly, a bomb goes off, and as the smoke clears, the marketplace is leveled. Body parts litter the ground, and screams replace the sound of the blast. The lucky ones that were only wounded slightly are seen wandering, covered in blood, looking for friends and family members in the rubble.

Unfortunately, that is part of life in Pakistan. We have seen it countless times on news clips. Sometimes one radical organization or another claims responsibility, sometimes not. On rare occasions, it is not the result of a bomb, but of an errant missile from a drone operated by the U.S. military. But that is assuming that the marketplace is truthfully only dealing in produce and household goods – it is silly to assume that weapons never make it to largely civilian marketplaces, making them a military target. Regardless, it is unlikely that the U.S. government would tell the truth anyway, because it doesn’t make the situation any better to do so. If anything, it would probably be worse if terrorists knew that the U.S. was aware of how they move weapons, so it’s better to call it a mistake, and offer a boilerplate apology.

The war on terror started in Afghanistan, and has shifted at least in part to Pakistan for obvious reasons – al-Qaeda has migrated there. It is no surprise that as the trial of five 9/11 conspirators begins at Guantanamo Bay, there is a video released of an American captive of Al Qaeda begging Obama for the release of terrorists in custody – presumably including the ones on trial.

I would like to say that I am certain that the President is preparing a letter of condolence for the wife of Warren Weinstein, instead of actually considering bargaining for his release. But given the fact that the trial of the 9/11 conspirators was literally hijacked by the defendants, turning what should have been a short arraignment hearing into a day-long affair, I’m not so sure. In the effort to be seen by the world as the better party in these proceedings, the U.S. is catering to the defendants. The unfortunate result will be depicting the U.S. yet again as the weaker party, at least to those in the Islamic world.

While it would be counterproductive to stoop to the point of engaging in intentional bombings of civilians abroad, and summarily executing 9/11 terrorists, it is equally harmful to bend over backwards to accommodate those defendants. The female defense attorney that attended the hearing wearing the hijab should be censured, and if she still insists on appeasing her client in that regard, she should be removed and replaced either with a male, or a female that will not do the same. It may seem petty, but it is important. To those defendants, her actions show that she acknowledges her “place” in their world. They are not entitled to that, by any stretch of the imagination.

Back to Weinstein, if he is still alive, it is insane to assume that he will ever be recovered alive. Given his health problems, it is quite possible that he is already dead. If he isn’t, there is no reason to think that al-Qaeda would release him regardless of what the U.S. would do. On the contrary, it is in al-Qaeda’s best interest to kill him on video, and release that footage after detainees had been released, to further prove their supremacy over the “weak” Americans. No matter how sad it may be, one American life is not worth giving in to al-Qaeda, period. Such bargaining would only serve to strengthen the resolve of terrorists, and most likely lead to more American deaths from future attacks.

Contrary to what the U.S. has hoped, killing leadership of al-Qaeda has not lessened the threat from the organization significantly enough to render it irrelevant. Pakistan is not a reliable U.S. ally in combating al-Qaeda, and it is foolish to think that it will become one. Without the aid of that nation, putting an end to the terrorist organization once and for all is virtually impossible. The mere fact that there is still a U.S. military presence in the region is fuel for Islamic terrorist organizations in general, so attempts to eradicate radicals is necessarily leading to the creation of more radicals. It has been argued ad nauseum whether or not “enhanced interrogation techniques” are torture, and more importantly whether or not that has lead to more potential members of organizations like al-Qaeda, hell bent on waging war on America.

FDNY Ground Zero

slagheap (CC)


Now, with the circus of a trial at Guantanamo Bay, it can be argued that the U.S. really has lost sight of what this is really about. Bargaining for peace with the Taliban includes releasing high level prisoners, and all the U.S. wants in return is a pledge that these detainees will not fight again. That is simply “peace at any cost”, and should be an indication that it is time for the U.S. to disentangle itself from the region. The focus should be on trying and punishing the 9/11 conspirators we have in hand. There is no real option for lasting peace in that region, especially not with any level of Western intervention. That intervention is arguably what lead to 9/11 in the first place. We cannot bargain our way to anything other than making ourselves look weak to those that have a deep-seated desire to destroy us. Catering to the enemy is a deadly game that we need to stop playing. If the next trial session at Guantanamo Bay goes as this first one, we have lost. We need to remember what this is about. Anyone that wants to sympathize with these defendants should be forced to watch the most graphic footage available of what happened on 9/11. They should be forced to watch people jumping from the towers to their deaths, over and over again. That is what these men did. That is what they must be held accountable for. We owe them nothing, but we are kind enough to give them their day in court. Get on with the trial, remove the defendants if they will not respect the court, reach a verdict, and put an end to this. Just by having a trial at all, we have taken the higher ground. That is more than enough.

Crossposted at Goldwater Gal.

Since The War On Terror Is Over…

Marines_securing_the_city_of_Marjeh_Feb_22_2010

Wikipedia Image

Just two days ago, a senior State Department official announced that the War on Terror is over. It was only a matter of time for this announcement to be made, since the Daily Beast called for its end almost a year ago to the day of the announcement. On May 1, 2011, Peter Beinart wrote an article proclaiming:

Bin Laden’s death gives the U.S. a golden opportunity to bury the war on terror—a distraction…that distorted America’s foreign policy for too long.

With this announcement from the Obama Administration making it official,  a new question arises:

When will the TSA be officially disbanded?

The purpose of the TSA is to keep us safe, correct? So if there is no more war on terror…. it makes perfect sense that the TSA will be shut down very soon, right?

Today, Kip Hawley, the former TSA chief says that airport security is broken and should be fixed. Mr. Hawley was the TSA chief from 2005 to 2009, and said that  after it was created, TSA “became too rigid” and airline passengers now have too many “unnecessary screenings”. He continued, saying that, “the agency should focus more on high-risk threats that could cause a catastrophe.”

On the other side of TSA security, today the Feds admitted that a TSA drug smuggling case in the Los Angeles International Airport is ‘significant’ security breach. So, the agency in charged of keeping airline passengers “safe” has a “significant security breach”. Surprise, surprise!

All the while, TSA defends pat-down of 4-year-old at a Kansas airport.

This is just the TSA news for one day! There are hundreds of other horror stories concerning the TSA. We’ve all heard them. In the “effort” to keep us “safe”, even Congressmen are assaulted by the TSA agents. Then there’s the little girl that was had her stuffed animal removed by TSA. There’s many videos that have gone viral of TSA assaults……… err, pat-downs. But no worries, it’s all for our safety, remember?

However, now that the War on Terror is “officially” over, it’s time for the official end of the TSA. There’s no need for the pat-downs to continue. If there is no longer any threat of terror, there’s nothing we need to be protected from- right?

 

 

U.S. and Pakistan – We Need Them, but Do They Need Us?

While everyone has been running about talking about the Trayvon Martin case, SCOTUS on Obamacare, and the various endorsements for the Romney campaign, our leaders have been trying to haggle out a deal with Pakistan. Given a few problems last year – killing Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil, and the deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers from a fire-fight with U.S. soldiers for two – the chances that the U.S. will get what it wants from Pakistan are not looking very good.
AFPAK
In order to understand this situation clearly, it is wise to consider the history of Pakistan. Since gaining independence in 1947, Pakistan has been tossed from quasi-democratic governments to military regimes and back again no less than seven times. In all of that time, only one leader managed to remain in power for an entire term. Stability is not in this country’s vocabulary, when it comes to leadership. While the current government has been relatively better than previous ones in some respects, it is currently coming under fire in part because of its relationship with the U.S. When the natives get restless in Pakistan, that generally leads to a regime change, so their leaders would be wise to seriously consider the ramifications of playing nice with the U.S.

Pakistan closed a needed route for supplies into Afghanistan, and is currently requesting public apologies for the deaths of the 24 Pakistani soldiers last November. The U.S. is standing by its investigation of the incident, that claims the guilt lies on both sides, so it is unlikely an apology is forthcoming. Additionally, the U.S. wants the ability to continue launching drone attacks over Pakistani soil – the Pakistanis not only want them to stop, but also contend that they are causing “mental trauma” to their civilians.

Beyond Pakistan’s problems with the U.S. lie its problems with India. While the U.S. may be the country that is most likely to be able to cause the most damage on Pakistani soil if provoked, India is the country Pakistan seems to fear more. Unlike the U.S., China is the most likely candidate on the world stage to provide Pakistan with the protection it desires from India. And even better in Pakistani eyes, is the fact that such an alliance would not have strings attached.

So what does this all mean for the Obama administration and NATO? While leaders from both the U.S. and Pakistan are publicly stating that they are working hard to mend their differences, the reality is that the U.S. needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs the U.S. Anti-American sentiment is growing on the streets of Pakistan, and the current government is under scrutiny for corruption. There is building pressure calling for early elections, and based on the history of that nation, that is the herald of regime change. The “war on terror” is becoming increasingly unpopular, not only here, but over there as well. And the U.S. is increasingly being perceived as a destabilizing force in the region by the Pakistanis.

But don’t worry. If there was anything going really wrong in the AFPAK theatre, Obama would come out and tell us right away. He certainly wouldn’t let such news get buried under headlines about a shooting in Florida, or any other problems he might be having, with say his landmark legislation coming under scrutiny by SCOTUS, right?

Pakistan to Shoot Down U.S. Drones- Tensions Escalate

A crucial tool in the U.S war on terror in Afghanistan, U.S.drones provide critical intelligence and precision airstrike capabilities that have proven to be effective in searching out and killing Taliban insurgents and assorted Al- Qaeda operatives operating near the Afghan-Pakistan border region. Now the Pakistani military says it will shoot down any U.S aircraft invading their airspace, severely limiting the U.S. coalition forces efforts to control the region.

“Any object entering into our airspace, including US drones, will be treated as hostile and be shot down,” a senior Pakistani military official told NBC News. Islamabad has closed the border crossings in Pakistan that the Western military alliance uses to transfer fuel and other supplies for the US-led forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan also called on the United States to vacate the Shamsi Air Base in Balochistan province. Pakistani forces took control of the base on Saturday after most of the US military personnel left. While U.S. military commanders have downplayed the significance of these developments, even of the most casual of observers can see that Pakistan has now become increasingly hostile to the U.S. simply by taking these actions at face value. This hostility actually became evident when U.S Navy Seals killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan right near the Pakistani Military Intelligence headquarters, which has also been downplayed by the U.S State department. This has become a very volatile situation that has been completely mishandled by the Obama administration and the State dept. due to the lack of any rebuke when it became evident that the Pakistani government had been harboring the world’s most wanted terrorist for years. Now Pakistan has not only closed down critical supply routes on the Afghan-Pakistan border, they are refusing to allow the U.S. to use drones to enable maximum control of the area. Meanwhile our State dept. and the Obama administration continue to directly fund the very same Pakistani military that are threatening to shoot down any U.S aircraft that gets near the border region.

On Friday, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani warned the US and NATO that any future cross-border attack would be met with a “detrimental response”.

Update: Now the Taliban just announced they are in “peace talks” with the Pakastani government.

2012 just can’t get here fast enough!

Dick Cheney Wants Obama Administration To Apologize- What's The Point?

Dick Cheney is calling on the Obama administration to apologize for criticizing the Bush administration for their reaction to the events of September 11, 2001.

On CNN’s State of the Union, Vice President Cheney praised the Obama administration for their actions with the drone strikes that resulted in the death of Anwar al-Awlaki, but  reminded the CNN host that previously, the Obama administration has accused the Bush administration of overreacting with the War on Terror.

Vice President  Cheney said:

"I’m waiting for… the administration to go back and correct something they said two years ago when they criticized us for, quote, ‘overreacting’ to the events of 9/11. They, in effect, said we had walked away from our ideals, taking a policy contrary to our ideals. We had enhanced interrogation techniques, they clearly had moved in the direction of taking robust action if they feel it’s justified. In this case, I think it was, but I think they need to go back and reconsider what the president said when he was in Cairo.”

While it is understandable that the former Vice President must now feel vindicated, and logically, the Obama administration should apologize for criticizing the Bush administration, the real question is: What’s the point?

In the article Apologies, we discussed the difference in a true, heartfelt apology and an apology on demand. While it is highly unlikely that anyone remotely connected with the Obama administration will come out and give an apology to the Bush administration, it is even more unlikely that any apology given would be sincere.

It all comes down to politics as usual. Unfortunately, politics are no different from any other aspect of our lives today, in this regard. Society has a new found "enlightenment", but integrity, authenticity and sincerity are rarities in our world today.

Whether or not the right action was taken by the Obama administration in the death of Anwar al-Awlaki is a moot point. There is the argument that his civil liberties have been violated. There are those who say he lost his civil liberties when he turned his back on this country. Those arguments are a completely different issue.

The issue on the table right now is an apology has been demanded. No matter what happens, nothing is going to change. An apology will not suddenly make our political atmosphere all peachy-keen. Politics will still remain politics as usual- apology, or no apology.

 

 

Super-Obama Takes Out Al-Qaeda Leader al-Awlaki

The people of Libya heard a dramatic swoosh of air last night, and upon looking up into the darkened moonless sky, started shouting, “look it;s a bird, no it’s a plane, no it’s… Super-Obama! Here to save the world  from the evil American capitalists and the dreaded Senior citizens of the Tea Party . Over at MSNBC, Chris Mathew’s whole body was engulfed in massive electrifying tingles as he cheered on Super-Obama upon hearing of his single-handedly hunting down and killing the Al Qaeda murdering Muslim cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki.   And then the Liberal lefties awoke to the reality that Super-Obama did not in fact kill al-Awlaki in a superhero-style act of bravery and courage. Sorry lefties, Super-Obama did not fly into Libya as pictured here and blast the vehicle that al-Awlaki and company were traveling in at the time with his high-intensity laser-firing super decoder ring. While that scenario may sound pretty far-fetched,  it is not however, too far from the Liberal media tale-telling we are already hearing from the leftists posing as news people today, in their ever-constant fluffing up of  what will go down in history as the biggest fraud to ever get near the White House, Barack Hussein Obama. Now that we have that out of the way, let’s look at the actual facts that brought about the demise of this really nasty-minded coward and a few his cohorts. Unlike the Liberal “journolists” and Josef Goebbel’s-esque students in the art of propaganda and history re-writes over at MSNBC, we will report the facts as best we can here, without adding any fluffy tales of fake Democratic Superheroes. Yes, we all know there is an election for Super-Barack to worry about, but that’s his problem.

First of all let’s get one very important fact straight here. The Global Multi-Culturists and assorted New World Order society manipulators seem to feel the need to label the murdering Muslim terrorist  al-Awlaki and his now dead Jihad-preaching pal Samir Khan,.. as Americans. These two misfits were about as American as another obviously mentally deranged lunatic, the anti-American President of Iran, Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,  period. Just being born here, or spending some time in America simply does not qualify a person as being an American. To be an American is an honor and a privilege to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, while assimilating to the American culture and the rule of law. These two Muslim Jihadis were anti-Americans at their core, and therefore should not EVER be labeled as Americans.

Samir Khan, a Muslim Terrorist Plotting Murder Openly in America, while Politically Correct Law Enforcement Endangers the Public by Ignoring the Warnings.

Samir Khan was born in Saudi Arabia, and raised in Queens, N.Y. In the beginning of his time in Queens at the age of seven, Khan appeared to be a regular neighborhood child, wearing baggy pants and listening to hip-hop music with his neighborhood pals. As he matured towards adulthood, Mr. Khan then joined two ‘supposedly’ non-violent Muslim groups and was indoctrinated into Sharia law, as is the custom for all Muslims regardless of their host country. [ To worship Sharia law and live by it’s draconian 7th century ideology is in fact, in direct conflict with being an American.]  Mr Khan’s family then relocated to North Carolina in 2004, where he is said to have gravitated towards radicalism after watching videos of Muslim Jihad-inspired suicide bombers blowing themselves up at American checkpoints in Iraq. It was at this time that Samir Khan stated  openly supporting Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in his online writing. He even went so far as to be interviewed with the N.Y.Times, in which he stated that his favorite video was of  a suicide bomber in Iraq blowing up an American military base. Yes he was still living in America at this time.  Upon explaining his favorite video of Americans being murdered in Iraq, Khan told the Times reporter, ” It was something that brings great happiness to me.”  What kind of a coward can sit there listening to this extreme anti-American statement and not call the police and demand that Samir Khan be arrested immediately?  A politically correct reporter, working for The New York Times, just sat there and took notes while this lunatic basically came right out and said the killing of innocent Americans by Muslim terrorists brought great happiness to him. Mr Khan went on to become the propaganda minister of al-Qaeda’s English-language magazine Inspire, where he wrote articles “inspiring” young Americans to wage war against the infidels in America and other western countries,targeting anyone who does not bow down to Sharia law in what he termed as the non-believers.

Anwar al-Awlaki , The bin Laden of the Internet

Anwar al-Awlaki was born in the United States of Yemeni parents, who then moved him back to Yemen at the age of seven, where he studied at the Azal Modern School for eleven years, until he reached the age of eighteen when he returned to the U.S. to attend engineering college in Colorado. In another apparent failure of our intelligence services and U.S. State dept, al-Awlaki was given a foreign student visa that allowed him to reenter the U.S. while falsely claiming that he was born in Yemen. al- Awlaki received his engineering degree after four years in Colorado, then earned an M.A. in Education Leadership for San Diego State University, and in 2001 ( that year ring any bells?) studied at the George Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development until the end of 2001, just 3 months after the 911 Muslim terrorist murders of over 3000 innocent Americans.al-Awlaki was an imam of The Denver Islamic Society from1994-1996, and also served as an imam in America from 1996 – 2000 at a mosque on the outskirts of San Diego. He left the Denver imam post after being chastised by an elder for supposedly encouraging other students to wage jihad against westerners. Did said elder report al-Awlaki’s radicalism to the authorities? Of course not, the so-called religion of peace while demanding the good life in America almost never reports the radical Muslims among them.

In 1998 and 1999, al-Awlaki served as the vice-president for lovely sounding Charitable Society for Social Welfare in… San Diego, California. In a page that seems to have eerily taken right out of the American Liberal Social Justice fraudster’s handbook, this “Social Welfare” charity group was founded by one Abdul Majeed al-Zindani of Yemen, who had been designated as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist  by the U.S. gov’t. The FBI also said in sworn testimony that this “Charity ” was nothing more than a front group for terrorist funding. Two of the 911 suicide bombers frequently attended the Mosque in San Diego where al-Awlaki was an imam. al-Awlaki disappeared to parts unknown overseas in 2000 only to be allowed reentry into America again in Jan. 2001, where he settled in Falls Church Virginia, right outside of our nation’s capitol. Again, this shows us just how politically correct morons within our government refused to snatch up this obvious terrorist and American-murder-plotting Muslim that could have stopped the 911 attacks before they happened, all because some politically-connected lawyers say it would somehow violates his civil rights.  Even though al-Awlaki was a proven Muslim terrorist waging war against America and plotting thousands of murders around the world,  certain ass-backwards people think he should not have been killed this week.

That is further proof of just how denigrated American society has become today, due largely in part to the Globalist agenda of the U.N mandates of  their Social Justice fraud being forced onto the American public. De-fund the U.N. immediately, and kill anyone involved in the murder of innocent Americans. Our very own government is funding anti-American terrorists through many U.N. so-called foreign aid mandates. The country of Yemen was harboring al-Awlaki at the time of his demise on Friday. Yemen is a hotbed of terrorist training camps and has been for decades, and our government still gives them our tax dollars by the billions today. This is in 2010, and Hillary and company have even increased U.S. cash payments to Yemen even more in 2011.

Yemen US aid 2010

Defense relations between Yemen and the United States are improving rapidly, with the resumption of International Military Education and Training assistance and the transfer of military equipment and spare parts. In FY 2010 approximate funding for U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF) for Yemen was $12.5 million, International Military Education and Training (IMET) was $1 million, and Non-Proliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs (NADR) was $5 million. In FY 2010 Yemen also received approximately $5 million in Economic Support Funds (ESF), $35 million in development assistance, and $155 million in Section 1206 funding.

The Obama administration and Hillary Clinton’s state dept. resumed military funding, equipment, and training assistance to the country of Yemen, to the tune of about some 200 million dollars, in addition to all of the direct and indirect foreign aid we were already giving them. Al-Awlaki’s parents were from Yemen, and they took him back there at the age of seven, to be schooled in the Muslim indoctrination into Sharia law and their 7th century ideology of waging war against all infidels who refuse to worship Allah. Then al-Awlaki came back into the U.S. and continued his promotion of Jihad against America unabated, thanks to the incompetence and political correctness of the U.S. government, resulting in the murder of thousands of innocent Americans on American soil and abroad. The ignorant children and teaching professors of Liberal ideology in America today have called for president G.W.Bush to be arrested for war crimes for over a decade now. How about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s proven crimes of funding the terrorists of Yemen ? al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen. The government of Yemen was supporting him and protecting him at the time of his demise, and yet  Barack and Hillary are increasing funding to the Yemeni government even more as we speak. How about it lefties? Will we see you marching outside the White House this week, and calling for the arrest of your Super-hero Barack Obama? They still harass former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and tried to arrest him just this week, so how about Hillary Clinton receiving the same treatment? That simply will not happen due to the fact that the misguided misfits of the left are nothing short of pathetic hypocrites with an agenda, being led around by the nose by the con artists of the fake Democratic Party of today.

The people of Yemen recently saw U.S. drone and fighter-jet strikes swoop down and demolish a convoy of vehicles which carried Anwar al-Awlaki and his fellow jihad propagandist, Samir Khan to their much-deserved fiery death, in an emphatic show of U.S. military might. Chalk one up for the good guys there. Anwar al-Awlaki had been hunted down by the brave warriors of the CIA, FBI, and the U.S. military troops who risk their lives by putting boots on the ground in hostile territories such as Yemen. Meanwhile, Barack Obama and Leon Panetta sat safe and sound back in their luxurious taxpayer-funded offices and simply micro-managed this situation and are not to be designated as being  some kind of ultra-courageous Super-heroes, much to the dismay of the Liberal media propagandists that will try to use this episode in true American warrior heroism, as part of a ploy to get Obama reelected. That  awe-inspiring  attack by  U.S. predator drones and fighter jets that swooped down and blew these anti-American Muslim terrorists to a fiery death was a powerful example of  just what will happen to these types of cowards who decide to attack and murder Americans around the world today. Let’s leave the Barack-the-Superhero- takes-out-Al-Qaeda -leader-Anwar al-Awlaki comic book episode to the propagandists of the Liberal media and the reelection campaign operatives of Super-Obama, shall we?

Excuse me, Ron Paul….Say, What?!?

A youtube video (below) is floating around…with Ron Paul lamenting the demise of Al-Awlaki and the way it came about because he was a U.S. Citizen. Say WHAT?!? Has Ron Paul forgotten that when you are born here, you kinda don’t have a choice? You are pushed out and here you are. Born. In America. Does this give you rights as a citizen? Yes. Then you grow up and make little decisions here and there that either cause your rights to continue…OR… you begin to lose them. You may find yourself in Juvenile Detention after a decision to go for a joy ride with a car you "borrowed". You may find yourself doing community service after some petty theft. Whatever bad decisions you make, you will forfeit some of your legitimate rights. Has no one seen Judge Judy? Here is a scenario: Perhaps one grows up completely disenchanted with America. Like the Obamas… They can attempt to make a change in their little universe or move away and become a citizen somewhere else like Madonna (by marriage) and that cute red head from the 16 Candles movie who went to France. (What was her name? Oh, Molly Ringwald. Thanks, Lisa!)  Unfortunately, a person who has peeled his American citizenry off like an ugly sweater is not privileged to enjoy such rights any longer. And whatever your decision, you may not harm other American citizens once you’ve left. Al-Awlaki hated his homeland, and helped make plans to…what? Send unkind letters? NO. He wanted to blow up the innocent civilians in it! He spent his days planning our demise. In this way, Al-Awlaki forfeited his "American Citizen" rights. The only right he had was the right to be captured, brought here, have a special "vest" strapped to him with those funny little "fireworks" attached, and then sent out to live his life, without ever knowing when someone would push the special button that would end his life. He deserved to walk on eggshells til dead. WHY? Because that is what he was planning to do to our people. To YOUR neighbors, YOUR family members, YOUR innocent fellow citizens. Wake up, Ron Paul Followers. He’s got more than a screw loose. His heart – his conscience – they are somehow disconnected from his logical thought processes. It is tragic and sad… But not as tragic and sad as the fact that many are giving the insanity he spews publicity. Ron Paul: It’s "Sad" We "Assassinated" Al-Awlaki. 

Obama Admin. Fails to Secure up to 20k Libyan Portable Missiles

Free missiles in Libya for terrorists

As many as 20,000 shoulder-fired portable heat-seeking missiles are unaccounted for in Libya today, as the Obama Administration is caught flat-footed and left scrambling to do damage control in a very dangerous situation that they have had a big hand in creating. In their zealousness to promote the Arab Spring [supposed] Democracy uprisings in Libya, the Obama administration is shown to be eager to bomb first and deal with dangerous consequences later in this debacle. In the rush to help oust the long-time tyrant and oppressive dictator Moammar Gadhafi, numerous stockpiles of these missiles have been left unguarded and have already in fact, been carted off by who knows what terrorist groups and individuals by simply pulling up and loading them into vehicles. The following ABC News video describes the dangers of not securing these weapons depots, BEFORE removing the Libyan military that was guarding them:</p

These 4 to 5 foot long, portable heat-seeking missiles shown in the above video could now be used against our military aircraft in Iraq, Afghanistan and across the globe, and were basically left free for the taking in Libya. From the ABC News report, we see that this dangerous situation was brought to the Obama Administration’s attention over 6 months ago:

Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch first warned about the problem after a trip to Libya six months ago. He took pictures of pickup truckloads of the missiles being carted off during another trip just a few weeks ago.

These missiles are deadly from distances up to two miles and do not have to actually be aimed, as they zoom in on an aircraft’s engine heat, and it also doesn’t take a lot of training to fire one. Basically put it on your shoulder and point it in the direction of any aircraft, and the missile will track the aircraft, strike it, and then explode.

Mr. Bouckaert was right there in Libya taking pictures of these missiles, and stated: “I myself could have removed several hundred if I wanted to, and people can literally drive up with pickup trucks or even 18 wheelers and take away whatever they want,” said Bouckaert, HRW’s emergencies director. “Every time I arrive at one of these weapons facilities, the first thing we notice going missing is the surface-to-air missiles.”

Former White House counter-terror adviser Richard Clarke stated, “I think the probability of al Qaeda being able to smuggle some of the stinger-like missiles out of Libya is probably pretty high,”

Recently we have seen The fast and Furious gunrunning scandal in which the DHS, ATF and other government agencies enabled the sale of assault weapons to drug cartels resulting in hundreds of murders on both sides of our Southern border, The Solyndra pay-for-play solar company scam where a good portion of half a billion taxpayer dollars have basically been shuffled into Democratic campaign coffers, and now we have the U.S. government enabling al Qaeda and any other anti-American maniac to acquire up to 20k portable anti-aircraft missiles. Meanwhile the ignorant sheep now known as Obama-supporters following his recent west coast taxpayer-funded campaign trip keep on screaming… Four more years, four more years!   Lovely.

Why, Despite Numerous Red Flags, U.S. Must Continue Relationship With Pakistan

The news out of Pakistan over the last several years has been a roller coaster of strategic victories and suspicious losses. News of high-level Al Qaeda captures are interspersed with reports of last-minute tip-offs before raids. The Pakistani government did help capture such notorious figures as Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (9/11 attacks), Khalid bin Attash (U.S.S. Cole attack), and Abu Faraj al-Libi (Al Qaeda’s #3), but sometimes its difficult to tell which side Pakistan is on.

The U.S. knows that members of the Pakistani government and military have ties to Islamic militant groups, many of which the U.S. State Department considers terrorist organizations. Some of these militant groups (created by the Pakistani government itself) are utilized in guerilla warfare along the Pakistan-India border. The Lashkar-e-Tabai (LeT), for example, claimed responsibility for the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks and is widely believed to have been supported by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

The U.S. is also aware that the Tribal Areas of western Pakistan have been used as safe havens for fugitive Taliban fighters and as staging areas for cross-border attacks by Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even remarked during a May 2010 interview that members of the Pakistani government likely know where Osama bin Laden was hiding. Thus it was no surprise when the May 2nd kill/capture mission revealed that Osama bin Laden had been living for five years in a compound near Pakistan’s premier military academy. Underscoring the distrust of the Pakistani government were revelations that the U.S. purposefully kept Pakistani intelligence in the dark during the top-secret operation.

Referring to the successful operation as a violation of Pakistani sovereignty, Pakistan quickly condemned the mission to kill/capture the mass murderer. Echoing this sentiment are poll figures recently released by the Pew Research Center showing 63% of Pakistanis “disapprove of the operation that killed bin Laden,” while 69% of Pakistanis view the U.S. as “more of an enemy than a partner.”

As of FY 2010, the U.S. (more enemy than partner) has appropriated or reimbursed more than $18 billion to Pakistan for security operations and economic aid, with nearly $4.5 billion contributed in 2010 alone. All this begs the question: “With so many red flags, why should the U.S. continue its strategic relationship with Pakistan?”

Logistics

At least 60% of the supplies required by coalition forces in Afghanistan are currently moved through Pakistani terrain or airspace. Although the Northern Distribution Network (agreements to cross the borders of certain Asian countries) was created to handle some of the supplies, many of the agreements do not allow for the transport of troops, weapons and other sensitive items. Through various political pressures these routes are ultimately at the discretion of Russia. An agreement between President Medvedev and President Obama last summer supposedly allows for all manner of cargo to move through the region. However, Radio Free Europe reports that as of July 2, 2011, only two flights have taken place. The only other alternative is an overland route through Iran – a contigency only expected to be used when Hell reaches its freezing point.

Stabilization of Afghanistan

A stable government in Afghanistan will require the assistance and cooperation of Pakistan. In the early stages of an independent democracy in Afghanistan, the government will be especially vulnerable to coups and Taliban sympathizers eager to inflitrate the new government (not to mention chaos from narcoterrorists and cartels). Pakistan will be invaluable in providing tactical support during any sudden Afghani uprising, as we saw when Saudi Arabia sent 1000 troops to support the Kingdom of Bahrain in March of this year.

Efficacy of Counterinsurgency Operations

Without the current contributions to the Pakistani government, future counterinsurgency incursions by the U.S. military may be regarded as an act of war. The U.S. took a lot of heat for its unilateral kill/capture mission of Bin Laden. This week the Pakistani government ordered U.S. personnel out of the Shamsi Airbase. Shamsi airfield serves as a critical staging area for immediate drone strikes in the Tribal Areas. While it appears the demand was a ruse to placate the Pakistani populace, U.S. personnel must maintain its presence inside of Pakistan in order to react quickly on actionable intelligence.

Increased Chinese Influence in Pakistan

Although Pakistan regularly faces nationwide power outages and serious economic issues, its government believes that acquiring submarines and nuclear capabilities from China has been the most prudent use of its resources. Such irresponsible deals have allowed China to gain a major economic foothold in Pakistan – some sources claim $20 billion or more in investments. With increasing Chinese domination will come attitudes against free society and the American way of life.

Suppressing Future Islamic Threats

Finally, as one of the largest Muslim populations in the world, Pakistan is essential in preventing and suppressing future Islamic terrorists. A serious concern is that the domestic militancy in Pakistan will become regional insurgency, and regional insurgency will become global terrorism. In this age, the U.S. must maintain a strategic presence in South Central Asia. Maintaining a working security relationship with Pakistan will go a long way toward preventing the next Islamic attack.