"A man’s pride will bring him low, But the humble in spirit will retain honor." Proverbs 29:23
Obviously, the anniversary of 9/11 was last week. On this year's anniversary we realized something we've been meaning to discuss. We want to commit this to writing before more time passes.
Senator Brian Birdwell and Chancellor Bill McRaven are both veterans. During their military service, both were involved in incidents with direct ties to the 9/11 attacks. But the contrast between how each discusses those experiences is striking.
On September 11, 2001, Brian Birdwell was stationed at the Pentagon. Not only was he stationed at the Pentagon, but he was stationed in the section of the Pentagon where the plane struck. The only reason he survived was because he had left his office to go to the bathroom.
Birdwell was burned on over 60% of his body and a plurality of those burns were third degree. His full recovery took several years. Nevertheless, he persisted to a full recovery before retiring from the military.
In 2010, Birdwell won a special election to the Texas Senate. Since then, he's served as a faithful conservative in that body. During that time, he's focused on the issues in front of him rather than looking backwards.
While Birdwell doesn't hide from his 9/11 experience, he rarely discusses it unless he's asked. We've never heard him discuss it in a political context except when it's directly relevant to the issue at hand. Indeed, this author didn't realize the Brian Birdwell from 9/11 and the Brian Birdwell in the Texas Senate were the same person until a couple years ago.
Bill McRaven, by contrast, was appointed by Obama to head special forces. As such, he was involved with the raid that killed Usama bin Laden. While McRaven likes to present himself as a crucial participant in that mission, numerous special forces sources (at least five) have told this author that McRaven was a bit player who has embellished his role to advance his career.
[Note: Direct quote from a Navy SEAL with whom we spoke approximately two years ago, "McRaven's story of his role in the bin Laden raid is the biggest horse shit political fairy tale I've ever heard in my life."]
Three months after the bin Laden raid, SEAL Team 6 was shot down while performing a mission in Afghanistan. This tragedy highlighted many shortcomings of U.S. policy in Afghanistan and was thus politically embarrassing to the Obama administration. To avoid said political embarrassment, Bill McRaven ran point on the Obama administration's cover-up.
Furthermore, Birdwell only brings up his 9/11 experience when he's asked or it's directly relevant to the situation. McRaven, on the other hand, never shuts up about having once been in the military. It's become a running joke at the Capitol and among UT Board watchers that you could turn McRaven's incessant references to his former military employment into a drinking game.
But when you can't defend the $287 MILLION cost (closer to $600 million once you factor in interest and cost overruns), the lack of sufficient parking, or removing one of the last open lots downtown from the tax rolls...CLEARLY you need to use your LGBT high horse to launch an ad hominum:
Don Zimmerman compared gay marriage to pedophilia and now he is leading the charge to defeat the new Travis County courthouse. We have to vote to stop him!
Don Zimmerman needs to go, and we can start by defeating him this week by voting for the courthouse. Early voting through Friday (October 30th), Election Day next Tuesday (November 3rd).
Your vote is critical. If Zimmerman wins it builds his effort to be re-elected.
VOTE FOR THE COURTHOUSE AND SEND A MESSAGE TO ZIMMERMAN -- HIS DAYS ARE NUMBERED!
To read more about why we need the courthouse go to our website.
"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them." Ephesians 5:11
To understand University of Texas Chancellor Bill McRaven, you have to examine his performance in his last job as the head of U.S. Special Forces. Cahnman's Musings has previously examined his role in destroying the bin Laden death photos. We've also looked into his failure to comply with Federal open records laws.
Betrayed: The Shocking True Story of Extortion 17 as told by a Navy SEAL's Father, by Billy Vaughn, details the actions of the government following the Extortion 17 fiasco in Afghanistan in August 2011. It was Navy Seal history's deadliest day. Billy Vaughn's son, Aaron, was on-board.
In May 2011, Seal Team 6 conducted the raid that killed Usama bin Laden. They died less than four months later. Almost immediately, the government's story began unraveling.
Three day's after President Obama's announcement of bin Laden's death, Aaron Vaughn called his family in a panic (44). They needed to instantly close their social media accounts and scrub their presence from the internet. In an astonishing breach of protocol, senior government officials had already blabbed about Seal Team 6's role in the raid (52-3). Because of that, the military was concerned about retaliaton against their family members. This was the beginning of the journey.
Following Aaron's tragic death that August, the government's story became increasingly suspect. They lied to the families about the media presence when the coffins returned stateside (67). Almost immediately, questions arose about both the competence and loyalty of their Afghan counterparts (75). The team was transported into a combat zone "in these slow, outdated troop transport carriers, rather than the usual MH-47 Chinooks that are designed to get in and out of of hotspots quickly" (101). Their number of missions had grown unsustainable (102). Worst of all, the rules of engagement prevented the SEALs from properly engaging the enemy (103). As Billy Vaughn explains, "something was starting to become very clear: weak-willed 'winnning hearts and minds' ideology had taken priority over keeping my son, the men on that chopper, our miliatry, and even our nation, secure" (105).
As the Vaughn family's questions mounted, so did their inquiries in official Washington. They were ignored by John Boehner and Harry Reid (106). A staffer for their own U.S. Senator, Marco Rubio, rudely blew them off (107). Further investigation led "to the appalling realization that the mightiest military in the world is being ripped asunder by a regime in Washington, D.C., putrefied with political correctness, moral depravity, and utter corruption" (114). And that was before they learned that the landing zone hadn't been properly secured (131). It's here where Mr. McRaven enters the picture.
In November 2012, the Vaughns attended a Naval function in Florida where Mr. McRaven was the guest of honor. Billy Vaughn wanted to share some of the things he'd learned to prevent future tragedies. Their conversation speaks for itself:
When the admiral finished speaking, I approached him, took off my sunglasses, shook his hand, and said, "My name is Billy Vaughn, you probably don't remember me..."
Admiral [sic] McRaven responded cheerfully, "Well, of course, I remember you."
I asked if I could speak with him privately. Hesitant, he paused, and then agreed to meet me behind the bleachers after he finished shaking hands and taking pictures with people in the audience.
....
As the admiral approached, I spoke quickly, not wanting to was any time with pleasantries. "Sir, I just wanted to know if anything is being done differently to protect the lives of our men in battle."
Since Admiral McRaven told me he knew who I was, I thought I didn't have to explain my connection to the Extortion 17 shoot-down. He had replaced Admiral Olson, as US Special Operations Commander, just a few days after Aaron died, and I wanted to know if the military strategy had changed.
I meant this in the most respectful way, but for some reason he became irritated when he spoke with me, "What's the matter with you? Don't you think I care about every guy we lose?"
I responded respectfully, "Well, Sir, I'm hoping you can share some things that will convince me that you do."
I genuinely hoped that a man in his position would know if anything had changed since Extortion 17 went down. I felt the burden as a parent to make sure that nothing like this ever happened again to our military. Admiral McRaven got defensive, put his hand on my shoulder and drew me closer to him with a smirk on his face, which was quickly becoming a brighter shade of red, and said, "Let me give you a few facts, IF your son did die...."
In lightning speed I raised my tone higher than his and said, "What do you mean IF my son was killed? You said you recognized me, and you knew who I was. I'm the father of Aaron Vaughn and he was killed."
This was not going well. There had not been a single military officer who had shown any notion of disrespect toward me since Aaron had died. He flashed a deer in the headlights look, and then immediately apologized. "I'm sorry, I didn't recognize you."
I can't remember what he said next, but he gave me the impression that he thought my son was connected to Benghazi. "I'm not talking about Benghazi. My son was killed on August 6, 2011." At this point, I was thinking, "he's just another politician. He pretended to know who I was, and now he's pretending to know something aboput me that he really didn't remember."
I went on, "You can smile and smirk if you want to, Sir, but let me give you three facts..."
Interrupting me nearly mid-sentence, he raised his voice and said, "Okay, I know who you are!"
Ignoring the interruption and it's content, I continued quickly, "Sir, whey was there no pre-assault fire that night?"
He snapped back, "They can get pre-assault fire any time they want it!"
I responded, "Well, Sir, according to the sworn testimony, they can almost never get pre-assault fire."
His next words only fueled the fire. "Well, what do you want to do, shoot up an entire village?"
"No Sir, but according to the sworn testimony, the village was on the ridges of the valley. There had already been a three-and-a-half hour operation underway and the chopper was shot down in the valley. Also, after the chopper was shot down, the Air Weapons Team did not take out the men who shot the RPG because there might have been friendlies in the building below the tower."
In a calmer tone he said, "There were a lot of mistakes made that night. This war is complicated."
The last comment -- sort of a confession -- struck me. There are mistakes made in every operation; I'm willing to admit that. But I was primarily concerned about the ideology causing our men to die needlessly. It was also the timing of the way Admiral McRaven said, "This war is complicated," because I was just previously forewarned by someone in Washington, D.C. that the flag officers, like Admiral McRaven, are known to say these very words when they want to avoid questioning. It seemed to imply that I could not possibly understand if he were to to go into greater detail.
I was now experiencing this warning firsthand.
Unfortunately, I didn't have the chance to tell him the third fact, and he still never answered my concern on whether he was doing something differently to protect our men in the battlefield. So all I could say was, "Sir, a man in your position, if he had the nuts and the guts, could speak up and change the way we conduct this war, and save our warriors."
Admiral McRaven, who is quite a bit taller than me, then jabbed his finger in my face.
I pointed my finger back at his chest, saying, "Let me tell you something, Sir. You can make a scene if you want, but there are people watching us right now, and I don't think either one of us want that.
He agreed and backed off.
I then calmly said, "What we need to do is get together and have a cup of coffee sometime." In agreement, we shook hands, and he told me to contact his office when I had an opportunity to stop by.
(145-9)
As the Vaughn's dug deeper, they were continually approached by military members who new first hand how the U.S. government's senior leadership was weakening the military; this set the stage for their follow-up visit with Mr. McRaven:
On January 4, 2013, Admiral McRaven arrived in a black SUV with tinted windows. The SUV pulled into my driveway, all the way up to the garage, and Admiral McRaven and a staff member got out. The driver then backed into the street and reversed into my driveway to park. I chuckled because it appeared as though they had intended to make a speedy getaway when our visit was over.
Karen and I welcomed Admiral McRaven and his subordinate into our home. We greeted each other and met his advisor, who was exceedingly polite and gracious. Admiral McRaven was a complete gentleman this time, leading me to believe it would be a positive encounter as I had hoped. He apologized for not knowing who I was. I accepted his apology and appreciated his concern. The four of us then sat at our dining room table.
Admiral McRaven started out by kindly giving us his condolences and expressed that he wanted to answer any questions we had. He told us he wanted to help us with our 'grieving.'
The 'grieving' angle must be a talking point all officers are keyed in on, since we've heard it time and time again. It's dismissive and insulting. It's as though any question or concern you have is only due to your "grief," not the very real possibility your question is valid.
The admiral wanted to emphasize that nothing about the meeting would be political. Karen and I were primarily concerned about our men and women in the military and the questions surrounding Extortion 17, so naturally we agreed the meeting was not about politics.
We started with small talk and about a half hour into the conversation, Admiral McRaven assured us, "I just want you to know that the military would never hold anything back from the parents."
To which Karen very respectfully responded, "What about Pat Tillman?"
Admiral McRaven lunged forward in his chair, his face instantly reddened, his voice churlish -- as though Karen had no right to say such a thing -- he nearly shouted, "What about Pat Tillman? It was just a simple case of friendly fire!"
The room fell silent, stunned.
Of course, it was just a 'simple case of friendly fire.' The problem was that it took the Tillman family three years to get the truth about the events surrounding Pat's death. Three years of being blatantly lied to by the United States military.
It hadn't been Karen's intention, but clearly she struck a nerve. Much earlier in our search for truth, we had spoken with a man who serves on Admiral McRaven's staff. In that conversation...he finally said, "Billy, the damn Army will lie." Then shortly thereafter, he made a statement, which bluntly ended that portion of the conversation, "Remember Pat Tillman."
We didn't know what to say next. The admiral did not realize the full impact of the revealing statement he'd just made. I finally spoke softly, "The military is holding something back from the parents right now."
....
Further into our conversation, the admiral unexpectedly and with no apparent reason began touting the virtues of our current president. After a comment or two, I said, "Well, look, Sir, you are not going to get me to agree with you about President Obama.
Admiral McRaven laughed and said, "Okay, I know."
A short time later, he became more emboldened. "I know President Obama and I see him often. I don't just know him as a president, I know him as a man." He pounded his fist on our table. "And he's a good man."
Politely, I touched his arm, "Sir, I'm going to have to ask you not to mention that man's name in my house."
He said, "Okay." Then the admiral -- who said none of our discussion should be political -- continued weaving the praises of President Obama into our conversation any time he saw an opening.
By the time of this meeting, I had been personally reviewing the redacted files we received at Virginia Beach for almost a year. I was very well up-to-date with the material, but felt I'd receive a fuller picture of the shoot-down through Admiral McRaven's eyes. Would they have the answers to my questions? I didn't know -- but I had been hopeful.
That didn't last long.
....
After a few seconds, I asked, "Why was there no pre-assault fire before Extortion 17 went in, you know, just to soften then landing zone?"
With absolutely no hesitation, the admiral replied, "The Operation was already over. By that time, the Rangers were already in the questioning phase of those they'd detained in the earlier raid and nothing else was going on."
Was this all Admiral McRaven had for his defense? If Operation Lefty Grove was "already over" then why was Extortion 17 sent in at all? Why was the IRF (Immediate Reaction Force) spun up with such hastiness that routes and landing zones were being determined after the chopper was already in the air? And why was the landing zone considered hot?
....
The misinformation continued and suspicions rose.
Around this point came yet another interjection about President Obama's qualifications and great, fearless leadership; this time it was in reference to Operation Neptune Spear.
The admiral explained to us that the president had nothing to gain from taking out Bin Laden. He then elaborated on the fear factor behind the president's brave decision to do so, telling us "There was only a forty percent chance that Osama was going to be at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan."
I told Admiral McRaven, "I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. I don't think the president had any choice but to go after Osama [sic] bin Laden."
He quickly replied, "How so?"
"Because the CIA had located him, and if people learned that Osama bin Laden was there, and it leaked that Barack Obama still refused to take him out, it would have devastated him politically."
At some point, the conversation shifted back to the matter at hand. I asked, "Why were our men on the wrong chopper?"
His countenance became a bit haughty and even defiant towards me.
....
And then came another round of praise for President Obama when I expressed a very painful concern, "It's hard for me to admit this, but I'm afraid my son's death is going to be in vain because the president has decided we're going to lose the war in Afghanistan."
His response caught me off guard, "Well I can't guarantee how Afghanistan is going to turn out, but I can tell you that President Obama is getting us out of Afghanistan."
Only two months earlier in our discussion at the Navy SEAL Mueseum, he'd snapped at me when I'd said the same thing. His response then: "We're winning the war in Afghanistan."
Had something changed in the previous two months or had he only been honest in one of our two conversations? I came back at him with a little frustration, "Yeah, but at what cost?"
His answer blew my mind: "President Obama got us out of Iraq!"
Unable to contain myself I blurted out, "And look how well that turned out. Now Iran is transporting weapons through Iraq to Syria and threatening Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East."
Still to this dat, I cannot believe what he said next, "Well, you know George Bush got us into the war in Iraq!"
This statement literally shook me. It was a childish argument and very unbecoming of a man of such high stature.
....
We were now faced with the heavy realization that one of the most powerful men in the special forces world had no intention of changing a single method of operation. [Author's Note: Which is EXACTLY what he did with Bill Powers.]
(154-67)
All this from the man openly rumored to be on Hillary Clinton veep short list:
Bottom Line: Before he carried water for Bill Powers and Joe Straus, Bill McRaven carried water for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The Extortion 17 fiasco was well known by the time the U.T. system brought Mr. McRaven in as Chancellor. For the scandal-plagued U.T. politburo to hire someone with Bill McRaven's record at this moment in it's history tells you everything you need to know about the U.T. politburo.
You know, what I would say and maybe a little bit of a different view
here. I think what really is freaking people out is the incompetence of
the Bush administration in Iraq.
Blame Bush? Of course, President Obama has to lead; it’s his superpower
now, his armies to move, his stage. But the prior president gave every
world leader, every member of Congress a reason to keep the dogs of war
on a leash. The isolationists in the Republican Party are a direct
result of the Bush foreign policy. A war-weary public that can turn an
eye from children being gassed — or express doubt that it happened — is
another poisoned fruit of the Bush years. And for the nearly 200 members
of both houses of Congress who voted on the Iraq war in 2002 and are
still in office and facing a vote this month, Bush shadows them like
Scrooge’s ghost.
Mr. President, thank you for keeping America out of Obama's War in Syria.
Mr. President, thank you for disappearing for 12 hours while a(n) CIA Weapons Depot American Consulate was attacked and keeping America out of Obama's War in Syria.
Mr President, thank you for overthrowing Mubarak, and keeping America out of Obama's War in Syria.
Today is the anniversary of the Ft. Hood jihadist attackworkplace violence. Obviously, tomorrow is election day. Given this juxtaposition, now is an appropriate time to review his record.
One Note: Whoever wins tomorrow, we need to reconfigure our strategy in this conflict. Obviously, Obama's approach has been a treasonous disaster, but the alternatives advanced by George W. Bush and Ron Paul aren't satisfactory either. I've outlined broad principles here.
Failed to stop the Christmas Day 2009 pantybomber despite having been warned by the guy's father six weeks before the attempted attack; despite this, Janet Napoletano said 'the system worked.'
Speaking of which, don't get me started on how much worse the TSA has gotten under Obama; the silver lining is that, in Barack Obama's economy, people can't afford to fly anywhere in the first place.
The other day, I discussed how the United States will continue to be at war for the foreseeable future. The bad guys, for reasons of their own, need to remove the United States from the picture. Regardless of what we do, they're going to continue coming. We are both the Great Satan and Vladmir Putin's primary obstacle, whether we like it or not. The United States must restore global dominance within the reality created by other global actors pursuing their interests.
We can do better. Thinly veiled appeasement, neoconservative democratization, and Ron Paul style isolationism aren't our only options. I offer the following principles as guidelines against which to assess future policies.
A Growing Economy -- Getting our economy moving is step one to restore American dominance. With robust economic growth, our current problems become much more manageable. The greatest military in the world is much easier to afford in an economy growing at 4% than in one limping by on around 1.5%; that's even truer if said military is deployed overseas, which ours, realistically, will continue to be. A crucial component of a growing economy that will also aid our foreign policy is...
Free Trade -- International trade is a frequently overlooked way to minimize wars. Under Obama, free trade has taken a backseat to union pandering. Open global trade is the low-hanging fruit of geopolitics. Unfortunately, many problems exist that we cannot solve through economics. When those more difficult problems occur, our first step is....
Priorities -- After determining what we can afford, the United States needs to prioritize the greatest threats and devote our resources to them. Right now, the United States squanders too much energy in areas that are irrelevant to our national interests. In my opinion, the primary threats to U.S. national security these days comes from Iran, Russia (yeah, I know), and our Southern Border. Egypt and Libya could, unfortunately, become top-tier threats before Mitt's inauguration. Once you establish priorities, it allows you to project....
Credible Threat of Force -- This is where peace through strength conservatives differ from libertarians. Peace through strength conservatives understand evil exists in the world; if we don't defeat evil, evil will grow. That's not to say every recent U.S. military action has been well advised or prudent (*cough* Libya *cough*; *cough* Kosovo *cough*). Peace through strength conservatives support military action where it advances American interests, NOT gauzy humanitarian bull-crap. Regarding Afghanistan and Iraq, most peace through strength conservatives believe we were right to remove the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, but we stayed too long and tried to do too much. This is important, because a credible threat of force needs to be tempered with....
Realistic Expectations -- George W. Bush's second-term "Freedom Agenda" is the direct antecedent of today's chaos in the Middle East. Yes, Obama's treasonous misconduct made the situation immeasurably worse, but Condoleeza Rice's State Department let this cat out of the bag. If there's one lesson America has learned the hard way this decade, it's that the United States cannot change an Islamic political culture that is theologically incompatible with with Adam Smith and John Locke. In Iraq, for example, the United States would have been far better served by installing Ahmed Chalabi and drawing down to 30,000 shortly thereafter. One we've tempered the credible threat of force with realistic expectations, we must....
Fight to Win -- The rules of engagement in Afghanistan have been an issue since Obama took office. In the Egyptian embassy attack, our Marines weren't allowed live ammunition. Heck, this is the administration that invented a military award for 'courageous restraint.' That's ridiculous, once we deploy our military under the circumstances described above, we need to unleash its full force and get the job done. Unfortunately, fighting to win requires a cultural shift at the top of the Pentagon that we will only achieve if we....
Clean out the State Department -- I can't prove (yet) that Huma Abedin is a traitor. I can, however, say with full confidence that the State Department bureaucracy is infested with hard-line leftists who advance a progressive internationalist agenda no matter who holds elected office. From Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, recent Republican Presidents have had their agendas stymied by the State Department bureaucracy. While I cannot prove it, I strongly suspect the State Department bureaucracy was behind George W. Bush's "Freedom Agenda." Once America cleans out the State Department, we will be able to....
Know who our friends are -- One of the best decisions George W. Bush made as President was telling the UN to pound sand over Iraq. America should not give the a fore mentioned progressive internationalists, or a corrupt French President, a veto over U.S. action. That does not mean, however, that America should actually follow the left-wing straw man and 'go it alone.' America has allies and friends we must honor and with whom we should work closely. Barack Obama's cavalier destruction of longstanding alliances and friendships is another dangerous aspect of his legacy. America must diligently and unapologetically rebuild those relationships. Finally, America MUST....
SECURE THE DAMN BORDER -- Don't get me started, but it needs to be done.
Again, I am not (yet!) advocating a set of policies. I'm outlining a set of principles to guide future policy-making. This strikes me as a good start....
This is an ongoing situation, and I want to sleep (and pray) on it before saying anything specific. We need a better strategy for dealing with foreign threats. I'm not sure what that strategy entails, but it runs through Tehran.
Some will argue that we should leave entirely because the Jihadists and Russains will leave us alone if we leave them alone. This is nonsense; Vladimir Putin and the Jihadists don't want to be left alone, they want to dominate the globe. They're going to play that game whether we like it or not.
That Afghanistan-specific quote also applies to the broader world. This world is fallen and, as such, evil people will continue to be at war with the United States. We can't change them; they view the United States as an obstacle. I'm all for developing a more effective approach, because the current mix of appeasement and nation-building isn't working, but naive myopia won't cut it. America will continue to be at war, whether we like it or not, for the foreseeable future.
I have never asked for help from my readers. My passion is for the future of my country and lending my voice to the fight to bring back constitutional values that have long been eroded in our political system. But today I break that record. The Democrat National Convention is in a couple of short weeks and I think this could be an incredible opportunity for a black conservative such as myself to engage those in attendance, challenge their views and maybe provoke some genuine conversation on the direction of the country. Plus, won’t it be fun to watch a “non-existent” black conservative for Romney blow some minds? It will also be a great chance to reveal just exactly who is attending the DNC in support of Obama, outside of the coverage of the mainstream media. I believe I can be a provocative and interesting voice in Charlotte next month, but I need your help to get there. I need to raise about $1500 for airfare, accommodations and childcare in order for me to travel to Charlotte on September 3rd. If you believe in what I do here at kiradavis.net and throughout the internet (including my latest project, therealfeminist.com) I am asking you to consider a donation to help me on my mission to make it to Charlotte. Any amount is appreciated. My friend Wendy Onstead has already set up a fundraising event on Facebook for me and others have pledged to help already. Will you join them? Donating is easy. Simply click the donate button in the sidebar to the right and enter the amount you wish to pledge. Donations are not tax-deductible. The only thing I have to offer you in return for your generosity is honest coverage from the DNC and a conservative voice you can trust in the midst of what promises to be a very interesting convention. If you can’t afford to give please share this with others and know that your readership and support is always appreciated regardless of your financial gifts.
If we want to build plausible alternatives to the corrupt media, from time to time Conservatives are going to have to step up financially support good work. The dirty little secret is that if we can get 1500 people to donate $1 each, we can get Kira Davis to Charlotte. She's a good investment.
This afternoon, I had the opportunity to speak with Erick Stakelbeck of CBN and GBTV about events in the Middle East and repercussions they could have in the United States. Unfortunately, I pressed a wrong button on the phone, so there's no recording. The following write up is from my notes.
Israel and Iran
Erick has been saying for months that he expects Israel to strike the Iranian nuclear program sometime soon. If you look at the history of modern Israel, they always launch pre-emptive strikes when faced with existential threats. They did it in 1967, they did it in 1981, and they did it in 2007. A nuclear Iran would be the greatest existential threat to Israel in modern history.
The biggest question we face is when the Israeli strike will happen. Erick Stakelbeck thinks there is "a good chance" it will occur BEFORE the U.S. Presidential election, possibly October. The reason for this is that Israeli leaders fear striking Iran in a potential Obama second term, and want to get the strike behind them while Obama is still accountable to U.S. voters.
Iranian Retaliation Hostility between Barack Obama and Bibi Netanyahu notwithstanding, the Iranian regime believes Israel and the United States are joined at the hip; they're the little Satan and we're the Great Satan. Thus, when Israel strikes the Iranian nuclear program, we should expect some sort of retaliation against U.S. interests. That could take several forms, including attacking U.S. embassies abroad or terror attacks on U.S. soil.
Iran as the epicenter of Global Islamist Terror
The longer I study Global Islamist Terrorism, especially the work of Yossef Bodansky, the more I think everything boils down to Iran; Erick Stakelbeck agrees. Iran and all the other various Islamist bad guys have all worked together in the past.
The bottom line is that Iran has its tentacles in EVERY Islamist operation around the globe. They're the keystone of global terror. Dealing with any other Islamist entity before dealing with Iran is pointless.
Syria
Which brings us to Syria. Syria is an Iranian client state. If Assad goes, it weakens Iran. On the other hand, we shouldn't maintain any illusions about what would replace Assad. It's a choice between Islamists allied with Iran or Islamists allied with Al Qaeda. Its a bad choice either way.
One thing to keep in mind: Assad could decide to go out in a final orgy of sour grapes blaze of glory, and launch chemical weapons at Israel. Erick Stakelbeck thinks Israel would retaliate directly against Damascus. Once again, I think I've read about that somewhere.
Afghanistan
Erick Stakelbeck believes we're never going to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans; they'll always be Islamist and tribal. Furthermore, the rules of engagement our troops are facing are ridiculous. Erick Stakelbeck believes we need to dramatically lighten our Afghan footprint and focus much more closely on killing Al Qaeda and Taliban.
Conclusion
There are three major global terror trends to watch over the next 6 to 12 months:
Iran, Iran, Iran.
How will Assad go out?!? Will he engage in an orgy of sour grapes?!? Will he launch chemical weapons?!?
The Muslim Brotherhood consolidating power in Egypt and 'tweaking' the Camp David accords.
In looking into Paul Ryan's record on national security issues I was amazed at it's thinness, especially for someone who has been in Congress for a decade and a half. Paul Ryan supports standard Republican boilerplate on Afghanistan, he voted for some sanctions against Iran, and he opposed cutting and running in Iraq five years ago. That being said, Paul Ryan has maintained remarkable silence on many national security issues, from border security, to domestic Islamic subversion, to Vladimir Putin's Russia.
Paul Ryan does deserve credit, however, for his position on Obama's War in Libya. Last year, Paul Ryan said:
"[Obama] didn't go to Congress, didn't ask for authority, the leading from behind strategy at NATO I think was very strange, and I don't think they had a mission well defined.
This is important, because it demonstrates that Paul Ryan understands that the issue of Congressional approval supersedes any discussion of the merits or demerits of the policy.
I had hoped Mitt would pick Alan West or Michele Bachmann, both of whom have demonstrated national security leadership in the past year. That obviously didn't happen. Paul Ryan's addition to the ticket tells us nothing about the national security policies of a Romney/Ryan administration.
Bottom Line: Paul Ryan is a blank slate on National Security. Unlike Barack Obama and Joe Biden, however, neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan is actively committing treason against the United States. That's good enough.
Last night, I got into a conversation on Facebook about the election. In the discussion, I listed all the elements of Barack Obama's record that he has to defend. Looking over it, it's incredible how much Barack Obama has to defend.
Feel free to keep this post in your back pocket. Anytime you need to refer back to Barack Obama's record, it'll be here.
Passed a Defense Authorization that, even if some of the internet conspiracy theories are untrue, still gives the government waaaaaaaaaay too much leeway to detain citizens without cause.
