The Ignorant Omniscience of Obama

The common defense of the Obama administration to unfolding scandals, led by the serial bewilderment of Obama himself when asked about developments, is that he was unaware of the (fill-in-the-blank) event until he was informed of it through the news media (even though, despite his declared ignorance, he labels them all as "phony").  Administration spokesmen even go so far as to remain ignorant of details by their knee-jerk response of referring reporters to the appropriate federal agency or department because they haven't the time or interest to actually be informed themselves.

Yet Obama took a moment from his perpetual fundraising tour last night at the first of his two dinners of the evening (the second for $25,000 a plate), at an "Italianate mansion" that overlooks Lake Washington and the Seattle skyline, to respond to a question about media contribution to what Obama called an impending sense of cynicism in the upcoming election.   

Whatever they're reporting about, usually I know. 

Where do I start?  Professed ignorance about the IRS targeting of conservative groups and the subsequent slow-roll cover-up, NSA's massive collection and use of communications of Americans and foreign leaders, the failure of the launch of his signal accomplishment – ObamaCare, the Veterans Administration scandal (despite having made it a campaign issue), the crisis in the Ukraine, the rise of ISIS and steady collapse of the Iraqi government, Fast and Furious, and so on – he hadn't a clue until told so by the press?  Or he already knew?  Which is it?

After all, we mustn't be cynical.

Lead From the Front: Col Alian Returns to the Fight

A soldier in any army would do well to emulate the attitude and personality of Colonel Ghassan Alian, the commander of the Israeli Golani Brigade, one of the more kick-ass units of the Israeli Army.

Alian, of the Arabic-speaking Druze community in northern Israel, must exercise the art of leadership in an increasingly artful way, not only to confront and destroy the fanatic enemies of Israel but to maintain a high sense of fighting morale in a brigade known for its 'Dirty Dozen' history.

This, for example, is a window on what such a leader looks like:

"We killed many terrorists, and that is what needs to be done."

Wounded by shrapnel while leading his troops in the fighting in Gaza, he was medevacked to Be'er Sheva but insisted on returning to his troops still engaged with the enemy.  Doctors were concerned about a wound to his eye but finally ruled that his eyesight was "not permanently damaged".  He left the hospital and returned to the front.

And the injured that I visited in the hospital, may they recover soon.  They are lions.

Roof Knocking in Gaza

The Israelis have been under the gun, both literally and figuratively, since they seized their country from the diplomatic morass of 1948.  The current iteration of their healthy sense of a siege mentality comes from their reaction to the rocket attacks emanating – again – from Gaza.

No matter what iniquities may be visited upon them, they must take into account the wide-spread attitude of the bien-pensant Commentariat, particularly the present Obama administration which consistently warns Israel against over-reacting to provocations.

The current form of their 'play nice' style of counter-attack is called roof knocking, and now we have a recording of an example.  The first step involves a phone call to the residence of a terrorist, asking for him by name.  "Hello, my name is Moshe from Israeli intelligence.  We know that you have women and children there.  Get out now.  You only have a few minutes before we destroy your house."  This is an excellent example of driving home your point by both physical and psychological means.

The warning is punctuated within a few moments by the impact of what is apparently a rocket with an inert warhead striking the house, probably fired by a drone circling overhead and watching.  Within 1:10 minutes, the bomb strikes and obliterates the house, followed quickly by another explosion, either a variation on the shoot-look-shoot technique or probably another target nailed close by.  If you look closely, you can see that the footage is spliced (or whatever the current digital version of that is), just before the impact, so the actual intervening time is unknown (probably 15 minutes according to the source).

Also, the later images of the battle damage assessment includes the necessary focus on the little dolls amid the rubble.  Note, however, that the dolls are pristinely clean despite the cloud of dust that enveloped the scene, and they are lying conveniently on top of the debris.  This sort of thing was seen repeatedly in news reports during the last Lebanon incursion.

Note also that many reports refer to "suspected" terrorists.  Apparently the fellow who set up his camera equipment to catch the impending attack had little doubt about the terrorist proclivities of the occupants.

Dennis Miller Explains It All

Dennis Miller, a comedian by trade, is more importantly a surveyor of the human political condition, and his unique ability at comparisons is perhaps his forte.  Take, for example, this introductory pericope:

There are two types of people in the world – those who are most afraid of terror, and those who are most afraid of global warming.  Now, you can put me in the terror camp.  I can't worry about the earth right now; I'm too worried about the world.  And the thing that worries me the most in the world is Radical Islam, obviously, and increasingly, might I add, Moderate Islam, because I'm starting to wonder when you guys are going to declare a fatwa on the assholes within your own organization. 

Miller broke into the big time in the mid-80s with a turn on Saturday Night Live,  where he had to establish his liberal bona fides.  Shaken from his torpor by the 9/11 attacks, he describes himself as a libertarian, open in some of his social views but a steady conservative politically.

Entertain and inform yourself for an enjoyable ten minutes.

I have returned

Rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated.

Please pardon the prolonged delay between postings.  Two close family weddings, within two months of each other, tends to take up a lot of attention and expense, and the focus on my vocation has increased dramatically.  As Oscar Wilde said, "Work is the curse of the drinking class."  That sentiment can apply equally well to bloggers too (a statement deliberately ambiguous).

I appreciate your patience with my modest attempt to re-start.

Speaking of being besieged by work, allow me to wish you a Happy Bastille Day.  Radical Islamists too ought to appreciate the commemoration, what with all the focus on beheadings.

The scene outside my office, an allusion to my in-box

But as to a sentiment not quite so literally sanguine, and approaching it from a different direction, perhaps today is as good as any to refresh our notion in regards to the current régime in Washington, and what may come to pass with this steady accumulation of scandal.  Aux armes, citoyens, formez vous bataillons,...

Iran Can Target Diego Garcia?

A story has emerged that cites Mojtaba Zonour of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a "top Iranian defense official", as saying that the joint US/UK base on the island of Diego Garcia is within range of their missiles.

In the event of an irrational attack by the US, America's military bases will not be safe from our missiles, whether in Bahrain or at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

This claim, if true, extends the known range of Iranian missiles by a factor of two.  That is an extraordinary advancement in Iranian missile technology.  It runs counter to the oft-repeated claims by the Obama administration that negotiations with the radical Islamist regime in Teheran are proceeding well, including claims that economic sanctions are compelling the cooperation of the Iranians.

It is in keeping, though, with the realistic observation that the Iranians are taking us for a ride in these long drawn-out talks, and that they are keeping their options for a nuclear weapons program – and the means for delivery – very much open.  The Iranians even say so tauntingly in their own press.

A question to ponder on this announcement: simply having a missile that has an extended range out to that distance (again, if true) is insufficient to make a credible threat.  A missile with the throw-weight and range to deliver a weapon must also have the capability for targeting.  What technology do they have to ensure that a warhead re-entering the atmosphere can seek out its target with any degree of precision?  A conventional warhead, of whatever realistic size, would only provide a large factor of harassment to the base.  Why go for broke to deliver such a relatively puny punch?  The targeting capability would have to be coupled with a weapon commensurate with such a strategic goal, and that can only be nuclear.  Placing a conventional warhead through the figurative window, as we have seen in footage from the recent Iraq wars, is a technology tied to cruise missiles, not ICBMs.

Even if this is simply bluster from the mullahs, it speaks to their intent.  Yet we are blithely assured that all is well.

Brief Thoughts on the Bergdahl Affair

I have returned from my activities elsewhere (a brief release from upcoming family wedding duties, the first of two) to jot down some thoughts on the Bergdahl story.

The Obama White House, as we can see more clearly now, was unprepared for the reaction from the public at large, and by 'at large' I mean Democrats as well.  This is, I believe, the most telling of the aspects of the story: how can they be so incredibly tone deaf as to believe that their portrayal of the swap would be received as a feather in their cap?  And Susan Rice – yet again – weighs in with astounding stupidity (a mixture of ignorance and lack of common sense) by stating that he served with "honor and distinction".  I've said before that the Obama administration is isolated and insulated, and this has to be a key example that they have bricked themselves up in their own ivory tower.

It is a glimpse into their mindset.  Bergdahl represents their idea of a combat vet – disillusioned, a victim more than a veteran, all suffering from PTSD, a continuation of the relentless portrayal of every veteran since Viet Nam. 

The administration's reaction to the swell of criticism, particularly from every one of his former comrades who has been able to speak on the subject, is to complain that they are "swift-boating" him.  State Department spokesperson Marie Harf sniffs that his comrades cannot speak with any authority on Bergdahl's slipping away from his encampment and seeking out the Taliban, yet she says this at a time when Bergdahl himself was still recovering and not subject to interrogation about why he disappeared.

I will not discuss the nature of the swap, involving the five Taliban prisoners from Guantánamo, for lack of time, other than to say it was a truly bad and misguided choice.  I do agree, however, that we should have sought to get Bergdahl back – but not under these circumstances – if for no other reason than to court-martial him.

His defenders want to cite his willingness to "help the Afghan people" and his disillusionment with the mission once he was in Afghanistan.  This disillusionment is instead to be compared to his remarkable lack of sense of duty; a young man's confrontation with reality is not uncommon under these circumstances, but one typically adapts, a part of training strongly emphasized by the military, and no one has willingly walked off his post and sought out the enemy.  Stories of his unit being undisciplined are crafted by those who have no understanding or experience in these things.

If Bergdahl had a primary compulsion to help the Afghan people, he would have sought out something other than being an infantryman in the US Army, much less attempting, based on an account in the New York Post, to join the French Foreign Legion of all things.  [We now have reports that he also had a short stint in the Coast Guard before being dropped, presumably for psychological reasons, from boot camp after a few weeks.]

We have some snippets of his time with the enemy, including an attempt (maybe two) at escape, and an image of his pleading for his return.  I suggest that a possible scenario is as follows: he abandons his unit (as has been testified by at least six of his fellow soldiers) and seeks out the Taliban (as testified by Afghans in the general vicinity).  Once in their hands, he realises over some period of time that he has made a grievous error.  Early cooperation turns to a desperate attitude.  His captors consider him as much a loon as his former compatriots – consider how he was taunted at the release site, clearly disoriented.  His only value to them is as a pawn for a trade for something much more valuable, like the five high-value prisoners that this administration foolishly provided.  John Kerry, in a befuddled reasoning to defend the exchange, warned that the five run the risk of "being killed" if they return to the fight – they are terrorists, John; don't you think that they already know that?

The affair reminds me of the case of Robert Garwood from the Viet Nam War.  A Marine PFC in motor transport, he disappeared from Da Nang in 1965 and, whether 'captured' or not, defected to the Viet Cong and was eventually commissioned as a lieutenant in the NVA.  Four Marine eyewitnesses testified that he was part of an VC unit which they engaged in 1968.  Garwood refused repatriation in 1973 until he voluntarily returned to the US in 1979 to face a court-martial, which resulted in a dishonorable discharge.  Some five years afterward, he claimed to have seen American POWs who had been unaccounted for, but all of his claims were eventually disproven.  ABC produced an appalling TV movie in 1992 that portrayed him in a heroic and misunderstood light, which (like the earlier 1974 TV film about World War II deserter Eddie Slovik) are examples of Hollywood being the propaganda arm of the anti-American Left.  I am reaching back into the dim recesses of memory but, like Bergdahl, Garwood was the hot subject of searches for some time after his disappearance, though in his case it was a matter of recapture, dead or alive.

A final note before I depart again – the five prisoners are members of the Taliban, yet Bergdahl was held by the Haqqani network.  That network has previously sought out an exchange based on a ransom, but what compulsion did they have for the deal with the Taliban?  The administration experts have often sought to draw distinctions between the various terrorist networks, splitting hairs in order to try to show that "core al Qaeda" is "on the run", but this is another example of the close alliance between groups that make such idiotic distinctions merely academic.

*****
Update:  And right on cue, this item in the hostage negotiation category crops up.  It worked before; why not again?