#Benghazi: Obama denied aid to attacked consulate – confirmed?

“No help”

Last November, in a post about the Benghazi consulate massacre and the question of military relief, I wrote about the question of “cross-border authority” — that is, who has the power to order our military to enter another country without their permission, per force an act of war. Quoting an article at PJM by Matt Bracken, we learned that only the President -Barack Obama- has that authority. Here’s the relevant information, again:

Once the alarm is sent – in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi — dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.

That is the clear “red line” in this type of a crisis situation.

No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation’s border without that nation’s permission. For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace.

On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the POTUS has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks.

Emphases added.

Today in an article at Fox News, Adam Housely reports that, because of a “communication breakdown” between the White House, State, and the Department of Defense, the military never received permission to enter Libya:

On the night of the Benghazi terror attack, special operations put out multiple calls for all available military and other assets to be moved into position to help — but the State Department and White House never gave the military permission to cross into Libya, sources told Fox News.

The disconnect was one example of what sources described as a communication breakdown that left those on the ground without outside help.

“When you are on the ground, you depend on each other — we’re gonna get through this situation. But when you look up and then nothing outside of the stratosphere is coming to help you or rescue you, that’s a bad feeling,” one source said.

Multiple sources spoke to Fox News about what they described as a lack of action in Benghazi on Sept. 11 last year, when four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed.

Read the whole thing. It describes a lack of contingency planning, largely centered on Hillary Clinton’s State Department, and surely they (and she) bear a lot of blame for the lack of proper security at Benghazi and the failure to recognize the dangers in that part of Libya. Four Americans died because of it. The Diplomad, a former Foreign Service Officer with direct experience of Clinton, has often described how she seemed utterly uninterested in the job, thus this failure seems all too plausible.

But, if Bracken is right, at the moment of crisis itself, responsibility for a rescue operation that night was not Clinton’s. Nor was it Defense Secretary Panetta’s, nor that of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nor of anyone else… except President Barack Obama, who, like the dog in “Silver Blaze,” did nothing. The Fox article itself, relying on unnamed albeit multiple sources, looks almost like an effort to either shift the blame to someone no longer there, Clinton, or disperse blame by showing how everyone screwed up, so no one person is responsible.

And yet, when we read:

Sources said that shortly after the attack began around 9:40 p.m., special forces put out the calls for assets to be moved into position.

“What that does is that enacts … every asset, every element to respond and it becomes a global priority,” one source said. “I would tell you that was given and the only reason it was given is because of special operations pack.”

However, the source said, “Assets did not move.”

The key question regarding a rescue effort remains: Who had “cross-border authority” and, if it wasn’t given, why?

Unlike Bob Owens, I’m not ready to say that Obama himself denied a rescue operation is “confirmed,” particularly when sources are unnamed, but it’s awfully plausible if Bracken is right about the president’s sole authority to grant CBA, and if we imagine a diffident Obama, who loves to campaign but hates to govern, voting present by simply not making a decision.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) will be holding hearings next week at which whistle-blowers with direct information about what happened at Benghazi and with our reaction are expected to testify. Maybe then we’ll finally get an answer about why the most powerful military in human history couldn’t couldn’t come to the rescue.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Important Reminder: Harry Reid is despicable

Seven Marines were killed in a training accident in Nevada last night. So, how does Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader, Democrat of Nevada, respond to this tragic accident? Does he offer condolences to the families? Prayers for the dead? Ask for a moment of silence?That’s what any decent human being would do.

But we’re talking about Harry Reid, instead:

As I indicated, it was quite a big explosion. We’ll follow this news very closely. I will do whatever I can going forward to support the United States military and the families of the fallen Marines.

Mr. President, it’s very important we continue training our military, so important. But one of the things in sequester is we cut back in training and maintenance. That’s the way sequester was written. Now, the bill that’s on the floor, we hope to pass today helps that a little bit. At least in the next six months, it allows the military some degree of ability to move things around a little bit. Flexibility, we call it, and that’s good. But we have to be very vigilant. This sequester should go away. We have cut already huge amounts of money in deficit reduction. It’s just not appropriate, Mr. President, that our military can’t train and do the maintenance necessary.

These men and women, our Marines were training there in Hawthorne. And with this sequester, it’s going to cut back this stuff. I just hope everyone understands the sacrifices made by our military. They are significant, being away from home, away from families, away from their country.

Emphasis added. In other words, if we hadn’t had a roughly 2% scale-back in the rate of increase in spending, which is what the sequester is, these Marines wouldn’t be dead. And, following the administration’s political line, those deaths are therefore the fault of the Republicans, even though the sequester was Obama’s idea and Reid opposed a Republican plan to give Obama flexibility in applying the cuts:

“Republicans call the plan ‘flexibility,’” Reid said in February before the Senate killed the bill. “But let’s call it what it really is: a punt. As President Obama said Tuesday, it would simply raise the question: ‘Do I end funding that helps disabled children or poor children? Do I close this Naval Shipyard or that one?’”

He told reporters that he would not change the sequestration law if Republicans didn’t agree to tax hikes. “[U]ntil there’s some agreement on revenue, I believe we should just go ahead with the sequester,” Reid said, per The Hill.

So, using Reid-logic, are he and President Obama then ultimately to blame for these deaths?

Of course not. This is just a tragic accident, something that’s been happening in militaries since time immemorial. The Marines will investigate and find either faulty equipment or procedural errors, and then fix the problem. It has nothing to do with a minimal slowing of the growth in federal spending that’s only just begun.

But that doesn’t stop a petty, weaselly punk like Harry Reid from using dead Americans to score cheap political points.

Like I said: “despicable.”

RELATED: In case you don’t know, Harry makes a habit of putting party ahead of decency. In 2007, as Majority Leader and with the war in Iraq just entering a crucial phase, Harry Reid went before the nation to say America had lost, cutting the legs out from under our troops to depress morale at home, giving aid and comfort to the enemy in order to advance the Democratic Party, before our forces had even entered the battle known as “the Surge.” A battle which, by the way, they won in a brilliant fashion, crushing al Qaeda.

Have I mentioned that Harry Reid is despicable?

UPDATE: The Marines aren’t happy with Reid, either.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Disgraceful: UK sailor humiliated by Virgin Atlantic

“Welcome to fight for us, not welcome to fly us.”

If this had happened in the US… Well, let just say it wouldn’t happen here:

For 15 years she has proudly served her country as a Royal Navy engineer, risking her life in Afghanistan when she fought against the Taliban.

But far from showing Nicky Howse the respect she deserved as she flew back to her latest posting, Virgin Atlantic staff chose to humiliate her – by demanding that she remove her uniform because it was ‘offensive’.

They warned the 32-year-old helicopter technician she would not be allowed to fly unless she took off her combat fatigues and wore a sleep suit instead.

Petty Officer Howse is on a three-month deployment with a helicopter unit in the US, but had been home on compassionate leave to attend her grandfather’s funeral. She had worn her uniform without any problems on a Virgin flight from America to Britain the week before.

The incident happened as she waited for her return flight to Los Angeles from Heathrow on Monday.

She was confronted by a G4S security guard and Virgin Atlantic staff, who ordered her to change into pyjamas before boarding the jet.

They told her – wrongly – that it was the company’s policy not to allow military personnel to travel in uniform.

As Petty Officer Howse herself put it:

‘To clarify, a British airline who claims to be Britain’s flag carrier won’t allow a member of Britain’s armed forces to travel on their airline in uniform.’ Armed Forces rules state that a serviceman or woman can wear their uniforms voluntarily from their ‘residence to place of duty, irrespective of whether they travel by public or private transport, or on foot.’

That’s a fine “thank you for your service,” isn’t it?

A commenter at the Daily Mail site pointed out that G4S is the same firm that couldn’t properly handle security for the recent Olympics, necessitating the deployment of the British Army. Maybe their customers should reconsider hiring the services of such a bunch of incompetents.

Virgin has admitted the error and apologized to Petty Officer Howse. They ought to comp her a couple of free flights, too, while explaining to their staff that the British military is not the enemy.

Read the rest for further examples of the ill treatment of men and women who wear the Queen’s uniform. Something is very wrong in the UK, these days.

via ST’s Hot Headlines

So, I get the impression Michael Rubin isn’t too happy with John McCain…

Background: On “Meet the Press,” Senator McCain (R-AZ) said he would no longer hold up the confirmation of former Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, even though he doesn’t believe Hagel is qualified.

That lead to Rubin’s rant:

What McCain is, in effect, saying is that he has no personal or professional problem with putting an incompetent man in charge not only of America’s defense but also—because of what falls under the Pentagon’s umbrella—most of America’s intelligence assets as well.

McCain prides himself on being a maverick. How sad it is that in the twilight of his great career, McCain now is so willing to knowingly undercut U.S. national security. How reassuring it must be to Kim Jong-un in North Korea, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon, and Ali Khamenei in Iran that McCain is so willing to help install an unqualified Defense Secretary. The only questions now is not whether the will test the United States, but when and how many U.S. serviceman will die because of it.

Ouch! That one will leave a mark on Senator Prickly McCain. 

Senators often fall back on the principle of “comity,” a principle of “getting along for the good of the nation” that includes granting a very broad deference to the President in his cabinet choices. But lately it seems that, particularly under Obama, “getting along” really means “Republicans should shut up and take it.”

Now, I’m all for getting along in a genuine sense: mutual compromise in which majority and minority each give on something, and the legislature and the executive show a willingness to deal. Our form of government needs that. Hence, while I despise John Kerry, he is arguably qualified to serve as Secretary of State, where he or any other SoS would be implementing Obama’s policies. So, I had little problem with the senators who voted to confirm him, even if I wouldn’t have.

But that assumes basic competence, and Senator McCain said flatly that Hagel is unqualified. In that case, voting to confirm him (or, at least, not block him) isn’t “comity,” it’s not courteous deference in the face of policy disagreement. To accede to the appointment of someone unqualified for the office is a dereliction of one’s duty as a senator to advise and consent. Before any obligation to “get along” is one’s duty to one’s constitutional obligations and the welfare of the nation.

As Senator Ted Cruz said,

“Of course comity is important, but comity does not mean avoiding the truth concerning a nominee’s policy record…”

So why, Senator McCain, are you giving consent to Senator Hagel as Defense Secretary when you think he is incompetent?

PS: To those who think not staging a filibuster or not otherwise holding up Hagel’s nomination is somehow different from voting to confirm him, I answer “don’t be naive.” The Democrats have enough votes to carry the nomination, particularly if a national security hawk like McCain will no longer try to block it. In this case, dropping opposition is the same as voting to confirm.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

(Video) North Korea’s air force stands ready to destroy us!

Take note, imperialist warmongering aggressors against the People’s Juche Socialism! The Great People’s Democratic Air Force, under the inspired leadership of Supreme Commander Kim Jong-Un, stands ready to annihilate you with one blow — within two minutes!

All in their vintage 1960s-1970s Soviet aircraft.

Quake in fear America. Quake. In. Fear.

Love that retro look!

via Business Insider

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

If you’re ever taken prisoner by jihadi terrorists…

Pray that it’s the Americans who come to your rescue, not the Algerians:

Dozens of foreign hostages may still be held by Islamist extremists who have defied demands to surrender in a besieged Algerian gas-field complex, Algeria’s state-run news agency reported Friday, and the United States said for the first time that American citizens were among them.

Twelve Algerian and foreign workers have been killed since Algerian special forces began an assault against the kidnappers, the state news agency reported, citing an unnamed security official. It was the highest civilian death toll Algerian officials have provided in the aftermath of the assault, which freed captives and killed kidnappers but also left some hostages dead.

Previous unofficial estimates of the foreign casualties have ranged from 4 to 35.

(…)

On Thursday, despite requests for communication and pleas to consider the safety of their abducted citizens, the United States, Britain and Japan said they had not been told in advance about the military assault, stirring frustration that the Algerians might have been overly aggressive and caused needless casualties. But the Algerian government, which has a history of violent suppression of Islamist militancy, stood by its decision to deal forcefully with the kidnappers.

“Those who think we will negotiate with terrorists are delusional,” said the communications minister, Mohand Saïd Oublaïd. “Those who think we will surrender to their blackmail are delusional.”

And “those who think we’re at all competent are sadly mistaken!”

At Contentions, Max Boot compares the Algerian scorched-earth rescue missions to Russian blunders in their own hostage crises:

The Algerians, by contrast, appear to have blundered in, guns blazing. This should not be particularly surprising since (a) Algeria is not a democracy and (b) it has long cultivated a ruthless style of counterinsurgency. During the war pitting Algerian security forces against Muslim militants (including the predecessors of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) in the 1990s, an estimated 100,000 or more people died as a result of the indiscriminate and heavy-handed tactics employed by both sides.

The Algerian way of fighting Islamist militants is eerily similar to that of the Russians who have pursued a similar scorched-earth approach in Chechnya. When confronted with Islamist hostage-takers, Russian security forces also rushed in–and the result was hundreds of dead hostages in a Moscow theater in 2002 and a Beslan school in 2004. In all these cases the assaults went so wrong partly because of a lack of skill on the part of the attackers and partly because their superiors simply didn’t care that much about who lived and died.

Of course there was no accountability for the Russian forces because their government is not democratic. The same undoubtedly will be the case in Algeria.

The point about how the armies of Western democracies operate in similar circumstances is important; officers and enlisted men are held accountable, both to their nations’ military laws and to democratic audit by the civilian government, a tradition stretching back nearly 2,700 years to our ancestors in Ancient Greece. The historian Victor Davis Hanson has often written of this.

There’s also the value placed on the worth of the individual, an inheritance from our Judeo-Christian heritage: life, a gift from God, is neither to be lightly spent nor casually taken. If a life can be saved without causing a greater evil, then every effort must be taken to save it. Finally, there is the very nature of the Western militaries, that they are largely volunteers, as opposed to a levy drafted by a monarch or dictator. The self-image of the volunteer is that of warrior, defender, and protector, making them largely sympathetic toward civilians held hostage.

The same cannot be often said for the troops of a dictatorship (which, except for a brief moment in the 90s, is what Russia really is) and, I think especially, soldiers of Islamic countries. A deep fatalism pervades Islam: all that happens is done by Allah’s will — in fact, absolutely nothing happens without Allah willing it to happen. Nothing. If you are to live, it is because Allah wills it. If you are to die, it is again because Allah has willed it. Thus the soldiers mounting the so-called rescue mission had no need for concern for the hostage’s safety; their fate was in Allah’s hands, alone. In fact, excessive concern for the hostages’ safety could even be seen as trampling on Allah’s prerogatives, a mighty sin. (1)

Thus I say: If you’re ever taken hostage by jihadist terrorists, pray it’s the West that comes riding to your rescue.

Footnote:
(1) The same can be said for the Islamist revulsion at democracy: Allah is all-powerful, the only source of law, the Sharia. For Man to presume to make laws is to set himself up as a god, which is blasphemy.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

How the U.S. Could Take Out Syria’s Chemical Weapons

This is a job for SCIENCE!!!

Three words: “molten, metallic foam.”

We really do have all the best toys!

Want to know how badly China has bungled its foreign affairs?

The Philippines says it supports Japanese rearmament:

The Philippines would strongly support a rearmed Japan shorn of its pacifist constitution as a counterweight to the growing military assertiveness of China, according to the Philippine foreign minister.

“We would welcome that very much,” Albert del Rosario told the Financial Times in an interview. “We are looking for balancing factors in the region and Japan could be a significant balancing factor.”

The unusual statement, which risks upsetting Beijing, reflects alarm in Manila at what it sees as Chinese provocation over the South China Sea, virtually all of which is claimed by Beijing. It also comes days before an election in Japan that could see the return as prime minister of Shinzo Abe, who is committed to revising Japan’s pacifist constitution and to beefing up its military.

Anyone who knows anything about the history of World War II in the Pacific knows the brutal, almost unspeakable suffering the peoples of East Asia suffered under Japanese occupation. The Philippines alone lost roughly one million people. Many who survived were nonetheless subjected to torture and starvation, or knew those who were. That’s still in living memory for many Filipinos, making it understandable why they would fear a militarily powerful Japan, and why Rosario’s announcement is such a shocker.

Walter Russell Mead comments:

Today, the Philippines is thought to be one of the countries most subject to Chinese pressure. It has a weak economy and a small military. That a country like this is rallying against China rather than joining up with it, and doing it in such a dramatic way, tells us a lot about what is going on in Asia and the effect Beijing’s foreign policy is having on its neighbors.

China has been anything but deft in its handling of its neighbors, making aggressive claims to islands in the South China Sea, possession of which would give it control of potentially vast oil wealth under the sea bed. This, however, has also had the effect of frightening its neighbors and leading them to seek allies from amongst old enemies.

And now the Philippines, worried by Beijing’s ambitions, wants a rearmed Japan to balance China. (How soon will they be inviting us back into Subic Bay, I wonder?)

This has implications for Japanese politics, too. Japan has a general election in a few days, and the expected winner, Shinzo Abe, has advocated changing Japan’s highly pacifist, restrictive constitution to allow for greater military spending and a larger overseas role for Japan’s military. Concerns about China, where nationalist anti-Japanese protests have become a regular occurrence, and a growing approval of Japanese rearmament from her former enemies could give Abe’s party a boost, in which case we could expect to see Sino-Japanese relations become much more strained.

Obama has made a “pivot to Asia” a focus of his administration’s foreign policy. That’s actually logical (1), but no one should underestimate the challenges Washington faces there.

Footnote:
(1) Yes, I’m surprised. Given the general incompetence Obama, Clinton, and the rest of the Smart Power team have shown in foreign affairs, they’ve generally done a good job in East Asia. I’m sometimes tempted to think it’s the doing of some Undersecretary acting on his own, hoping the bosses won’t notice…

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Benghazi Consulate Massacre: the responsibility for not launching a rescue mission

Obama said “no.”

One of the enduring mysteries of the Benghazi massacre is the lack of any serious attempt to render assistance to those trapped in the consulate and the CIA annex building. We know the resources were available at Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily, one to two hours away by air. We know that Special Forces units were moved from Central Europe to Italy in anticipation of a “go” order. So why didn’t they go?

At PJ Media, former Navy SEAL Matt Bracken explains that the authority to cross a national border on a hostile mission, such as a rescue in Benghazi, can only come from the President. Not the Vice President, not the Secretary of Defense, not the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not even from regional commanders in the area. They can preposition all they want, but, in the end, the only person with “cross-border authority” is, for now, Barack Obama:

The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor — the granting or withholding of “cross-border authority.” This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut.

Once the alarm is sent – in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi — dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.

That is the clear “red line” in this type of a crisis situation.

No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation’s border without that nation’s permission. For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace.

On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the POTUS has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks.

Ships can loiter on station, but airplanes fall out of the sky, so they must be redirected to an air base (Sigonella, in Sicily) to await the POTUS decision on granting CBA. If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already “in country” in Libya — such as the Tripoli quick reaction force and the Predator drones. These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli. They are already “in country,” so CBA rules do not apply to them.

How might this process have played out in the White House?

Read the rest to see Mr. Bracken’s speculations regarding what happened that night in the White House. It’s an enlightening piece from someone who knows how these situations operate.

It also sheds light on another mystery. It’s been reported that one of the former SEALs defending the Annex had put a targeting laser on a jihadi mortar crew, something he would do only if he expected help and was trying to direct incoming fire. This lead to speculation that there was an AC-130 gunship over Benghazi at time time, but that it was denied permission to fire. If Mr. Bracken’s analysis is correct, it’s quite possible a craft was launched from Sicily with the expectation that CBA would be coming soon. Did the SEAL trapped in Benghazi know that the gunship was close, and was painting the target to be ready for it?

We may never know.

But what we do know, thanks to Mr. Bracken, is that sole responsibility for the American response that night lies with President Barack Obama. Whether by actively denying permission or passively not making a decision (by going to bed?), President Obama left those men to die.

Remember that next Tuesday.

RELATED: Some other articles of interest.

What kind of lasers did they have in Benghazi?

The consulate knew it was being watched.

During the attack, Obama failed to convene a key group created for just this situation.

The consulate in Benghazi warned State of a possible attack three hours before it happened.

Egypt arrests pro-al Qaeda jihadist tied to Benghazi suspect

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Benghazi Consulate Massacre: where was the military help? UPDATE: “Not a foreign policy failure”

One of the unanswered questions surrounding the assault on our consulate in Benghazi is why no rescue mission was launched. We already know that multiple requests from the ambassador and others for heightened security –or even to keep the security they had– were turned down by the State Department. Two former Navy SEALs died trying to protect the consulate, but where, in that great American tradition, was “the cavalry?”

CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson asks that same question, but the answers are, well, less than satisfying:

Some lawmakers are asking why U.S. military help from outside Libya didn’t arrive as terrorists battered more than 30 Americans over the course of more than seven hours. The assault was launched by an armed mob of dozens that torched buildings and used rocket propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles.

CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.

The State Department, White House and Pentagon declined to say what military options were available. A White House official told CBS News that, at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies.”

But it was too late to help the Americans in Benghazi. The ambassador and three others were dead.

(Emphasis added)

Attkisson interviews a former Special Forces soldier, who is less than impressed with the “we checked all options” line:

Retired CIA officer Gary Berntsen believes help could have come much sooner. He commanded CIA counter-terrorism missions targeting Osama bin Laden and led the team that responded after bombings of the U.S. Embassy in East Africa.

“You find a way to make this happen,” Berntsen says. “There isn’t a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments. They made zero adjustments in this. They stood and they watched and our people died.”

Remember, this “battle” went on for seven hours. That gave the US time to put a drone overhead, so we could watch the last few hours of fighting. But this begs the question: If we could get a drone overhead, why not a rescue force?

In fact, Attkisson reports that the military had assets at Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily, assets that included AC-130 gunships, which could have at least buzzed the crowd to drive them off before opening fire.

And that help was only an hour away in a battle that lasted seven hours.

Another interviewee mentioned military risks and potential diplomatic problems from intervening. My response is “So?”  All combat operations involve risk. When American lives were in danger, that was a time to take that risk. And “diplomatic difficulties” with the Libyan government? Puh-leeze. One phone call from Clinton or Obama should have settled that with a reminder to the Libyan government that a) they wouldn’t exist without us and b) that we remember those who help us… and the implication that we also remember those who don’t.

And if that doesn’t work, you go in anyway and worry about Tripoli’s feelings later.

What you don’t do is worry about the niceties when this is happening:

US Consulate, Benghazi

You cannot tell me that the mightiest military the world has ever seen could do nothing useful in Benghazi. That we didn’t speaks volumes about the lack of leadership in D.C., including a Commander in Chief who went to bed while the fighting still raged. And if we really couldn’t, then that testifies to the lack of judgement on the part of policy makers who didn’t have the foresight to position assets ahead of time, just in case there was trouble in a region that is a known al Qaeda recruiting ground.

Either way, this incompetent crowd has got to go, before they get anyone else killed.

RELATED: More at Hot Air. The Anchoress makes a Catch-22 reference and asks some darned fine questions.

UPDATE: Doing her own rendition of “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”, Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter claims the only reason the Benghazi consulate massacre is a controversy is that those mean old Republicans are politicizing it, that it could have happened anywhere, and that it was not a failure on the part of the Obama administration. Be sure to read Ed Morrissey’s response to Cutter’s tripe; it drips with well-deserved scorn.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

New OPSEC ad: “Bumps in the Road?”`

OPSEC comprises a group of former Special Forces and intelligence personnel who have criticized President Obama before for revealing classified information in pursuit of his reelection. They’ve come out with a new ad in the Virginia market smacking the president for his “bumps in the road” description of the deaths of Americans in Benghazi:

It’s a smart ad buy; Virginia is both a swing state and heavily military. I doubt many there will appreciate the comparison of the president’s victory laps for the killing of bin Laden on the one hand, and his dismissal of military deaths as “bumps in the road” on the other.

OPSEC has a web site for donations. If you feel that this is an important message to get out to other battleground states, consider sending them a few bucks.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

(Video) A moving tribute to fallen warriors

Via Michael Yon, here’s video from the New Zealand Defence Force of members of the 2/1 Battalion enacting a Maori haka  to honor comrades killed by an IED trap in Afghanistan:

From the description posted by the NZDF:

Haka is used throughout New Zealand by many, not only Māori, to demonstrate their collective thoughts. There is a haka for each of the Services, as well as the Defence Force. Units with the NZ Army have their own haka. This video shows the soldiers of 2/1 RNZIR Battalion performing their Unit haka, powerfully acknowledging the lives and feats of their fallen comrades as they come onto the Unit’s parade ground. It is also an emotive farewell for they will leave via the waharoa (the carved entrance way) for the very last time.

Haka –sometimes termed a posture dance could also be described as a chant with actions. There are various forms of haka; some with weapons some without, some have set actions others may be ‘free style.’ Haka is used by Māori (indigenous people of New Zealand) for a myriad of reasons; to challenge or express defiance or contempt, to demonstrate approval or appreciation, to encourage or to discourage, to acknowledge feats and achievements, to welcome, to farewell, as an expression of pride, happiness or sorrow. There is almost no inappropriate occasion for haka; it is an outward display of inner thoughts and emotions. Within the context of an occasion it is abundantly clear which emotion is being expressed.

Aside from the haka itself, what I find so fascinating are the stark contrasts in the ceremony: between the loud, demonstrative warriors’ farewell and the quiet dignity of the Christian priest leading the fallen to their rest; between the world of the Maori and that of England. The two come together and, instead of clashing, blend to create something very powerful.

May they rest in peace.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

(Video) SEALs don’t fight so American presidents can bow to kings

Another hard-hitting ad by special operations veterans, this time from Special Operations For America (SOFA), headed by former Navy SEAL Ryan Zinke, a Montana state senator.

Did I say “hard hitting?” Make that a gut-punch.

Ben Shapiro at Breitbart spoke with Senator Zinke about why these former special operators have chosen to speak out:

The ad is sure to provoke massive consternation on the left, which has been in a frenzy ever since Special Operations for America launched. The event at which the ad launches, “Defending Our Defenders: A Salute to the United States Military,” will feature a tribute by Congressman Louie Gohmert, former members of SEAL Team Six, Army Rangers, Gold Star parents, and a few surprise guests.

Ryan Zinke, the former Navy SEAL who started the super PAC, spoke exclusively with Breitbart News today. “The ad itself accurately portrays where this President is,” said Zinke. “It accurately portrays his core belief that America should not lead. This president is shaping America to be one of the followers, to relinquish our role as a world leader. I didn’t fight 23 years as a Navy SEAL to watch America bow to anybody.”

(…)

When asked whether it was inappropriate for former SEALs to speak out, as some on the left have alleged, Zinke answered, “If the veterans can’t speak out, who can? I think it’s a duty of every veteran and every citizen to be actively involved in our political process, especially when the president sets out to negotiate away our rights under the Constitution. There have been other veterans — TR, Eisenhower, JFK — they’ve been active in speaking out and shaping the policy and politics of our country. I’m going to stand for what I believe in, and I’m encouraging every veteran and every citizen to do the same. Our country is at a crossroads, and this election is certainly the most important in my lifetime.”

And, as Shapiro notes, for their choice to speak freely as American citizens and veterans, SOFA has been placed on the White House “enemies list.”

Nice way to say “thanks for your service,” isn’t it?

RELATED: An earlier short video from another group of concerned veterans and intelligence operatives, this time on White House leaks.

PS: Romney-Ryan 2012, because they won’t glad-hand our enemies.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Obama hates missile defense, except when he’s trying to buy votes

Mitt Romney is on an overseas trip to Great Britain, Israel, and Poland. Worried about the Jewish vote at home because of his noted lack of support for Israel and wanting to steal a bit of the limelight from Romney, President Obama signed a bill giving Israel $70,000,000 for their (very promising) Iron Dome short-range missile defense system. What’s notable about that, you ask?

• First, he cut money for that same system just a few months ago. What changed his mind? The approach of November and his poll numbers. Bet on it.
• Second, he has cut our own missile defense program, keeping a campaign promise he’d rather you didn’t remember.
• Finally, and this gets back to Romney’s trip, he stabbed Poland and the Czech Republic in the back over missile defense, in order to appease the Russians. There are no blocs of rich Polish or Czech donors in the US.

It’s all about the pandering, baby.

via Moe Lane

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Rule 5 Friday: guns and bikinis edition

Now this is an army!

The Daily Mail explains:

Standing confidently on the beach, with a rifle casually slung over her shoulder, you would think twice about knocking over this woman’s sandcastle.   

The bikini-clad subject is thought to be a solider and a member of the highly-trained Israeli Defence Forces. 

Since the surprising photo, snapped in Tel Aviv, was posted on the internet it has gone viral with many users reacted with shock at seeing such a hostile weapon on a sunny beach.

Some internet users were perplexed as to why the woman in the photo would be at the beach with a rifle- which does not appear to have a magazine loaded – but not in her uniform.

But other users were quick to point out there could have been practical reasons for the solider to take the weapon to the beach.

Under Israeli military regulations, if members take their weapon out from their military base they must keep them near at all times.

Once again, the Babes of Democracy rule. (Here, too.)

PS: There actually is a roleplaying game called “Macho Women With Guns.”

D-day: storming the castle — Updated

(Note: This is a re-posting and slight editing of a post I put up every D-Day.)

Sixty-eight years ago today, American, British, Canadian, French, and Polish soldiers charged the gates of Hell — and won:

Black Five put up an excellent roundup of D-Day posts from many blogs a few years ago. It’s still worth reviewing. And have a look at this entry for a photo essay on D-Day.

Photo courtesy of Confederate Yankee.

RELATED: The Daily Mail tells the story of one Medal of Honor winner who still wonders how he survived Normandy.

UPDATE: In today’s newsletter, Real Clear Politics quotes the prayer FDR read when announcing the invasion to the nation:

“Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity,” the president said while the outcome of the battle was still in doubt.

“They will need Thy blessings,” FDR continued. “Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph…”

Imagine a president saying something like that nowadays; the Left would have a fit.

But, forget them. Today’s a day to remember genuine heroes and thank Divine Providence we had such men on our side.

UPDATE 2: Obama’s apologists like to compare him to significant presidents of the past, including FDR. Well, here’s another comparison for you: check the President’s schedule for today. See any mention of any commemoration of D-Day — or anything at all to do with one of the most significant moments in our nation’s history? Neither do I. Must be an oversight.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Memorial Day: “The Boys of Pointe du Hoc”

At commemoration ceremonies for the 40th anniversary of the D-Day landings, President Reagan focused his speech on the heroes (1) of the 2nd Ranger Battalion who scaled the sheer cliffs of Pointe du Hoc to take out German artillery that threatened the landings at Omaha and Utah beaches.

It was arguably one of Reagan’s finest speeches, one well-worth watching again this Memorial Day:

Footnote:
(1) Yes, Chris Hayes, “heroes.” Try using a dictionary, since you evidently don’t know the meaning of the word. More at Twitchy.

Photo credit: American Battle Monuments Commission.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

“Without them, who would we be?”

A superb essay by my friend Salena Zito for Memorial Day weekend:

Lyle Smith sat in a wheelchair on the grounds of the national cemetery, not far from the Tomb of the Unknowns.

“I never imagined there would be so many headstones,” he said, looking out over the green rolling hills covered with snow-white markers.

Smith was born seven years after the “War to End All Wars” ended; less than 20 years later, he left his family’s homestead in Columbus, Wis., as a volunteer to serve his country in another world war.

Except for time spent in the European theater, he never ventured far from Wisconsin; he married Shirley and they had a son and daughter, each of whom also had a son and daughter, and those four grandchildren each had a son and daughter as well.

“I’ve led a good life,” Smith, 87, said. “I’ve worked hard, I’ve loved my family.”

He made a living as a skilled carpenter and now volunteers at a senior center. He remains fiercely proud of his military service.

Smith struggled to find words to describe how he felt about being where former comrades are buried alongside soldiers from every U.S. conflict going back to the Civil War.

“It’s overwhelming,” he said. “And I think back to our very first war, our Revolution and those freedom fighters, and I have to thank all of them. Without every one of them, I would not be here.”

Be sure to read the rest.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

(Video) “Heroes don’t spike the football.”

Whoa. That sound you heard was Obama getting slapped in the face by this:

That’ll leave a mark.

Since we’re using football analogies, what this reminds me of is Terrell Owens’ classless celebration on the Cowboys’ midfield star, and Emmitt Smith’s lesson to him why that was a bad idea.

PS: Ever get the feeling President Short Pants has lost 99.99% of the “military and their families” vote?

via Jim Geraghty

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Afghanistan: a medal for a hero

Captain Barry Crawford today receives the Air Force Cross, second only to the Medal of Honor, for exceptional bravery under fire in the eastern part of that country. Acting as the forward air controller for a Special Forces detachment on patrol with the Afghan Army, Captain Crawford exposed himself to Taliban fire while calling in airstrikes and directing rescue helicopters during an enemy ambush described as “shooting fish in a barrel” — and we were the fish.

He did this not once, but four times:

The 31-year-old native of suburban Philadelphia is a special operations combat controller — a battlefield airman who calls in air strikes and provides communications during covert missions.

“Our primary weapon is not our sidearm or rifle,” Crawford said in an interview Wednesday. “It’s actually our radio.”

That’s part of what makes it all the more noteworthy that Crawford exposed himself to insurgent fire in an open field to guide in a medical evacuation helicopter and twice again exposed himself to launch attacks on militant positions with his assault rifle. This was all the while controlling 33 aircraft and well over 40 strafing and bombing airstrikes during a 14-hour ambush and battle in eastern Afghanistan.

“Capt. Crawford braved effective enemy fire and consciously placed himself at grave risk on four occasions,” the citation from President Barack Obama says. “His selfless actions and expert airpower employment neutralized a numerically superior” insurgent force.

Crawford and Army special forces, who were mentoring Afghan commandos, were on a mission to move through a local village, search houses for weapons and meet local residents, “just trying to talk to them and see what’s going on, gather some intelligence,” he said. They were told the village was sympathetic to the Taliban and to expect 10 to 15 fighters in the region.

But someone had tipped off insurgents and the mission quickly turned into what Crawford called “a battle of survival.”

The U.S. and Afghan troops found the village largely empty but laced with tunnels, and “each house was like a little fortress in itself (fitted with) firing ports,” Crawford said.

Eventually more than 100 insurgents converged on the area.

Final tally: no Americans seriously hurt, three wounded Afghan commandos, and 80 dead Taliban.

Largely thanks to Captain Barry Crawford (USAF).

Yeah, I’d say he earned his medal.

PS: Men and women such as Crawford, who can keep their heads under fire and do what needs to be done, will forever amaze me — and forever leave me grateful they’re on our side. Me, I’d probably have been curled up behind a rock, crying for my mother. There have been so many stories of military heroics from both Iraq and Afghanistan; I wish the press would give them more prominent coverage.

UPDATE: Welcome PJMedia readers, and thanks for the link, Michael!

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)