Albert Einstein once noted that not everything that is measurable is valuable, and not everything that is valuable is measurable. In the midst of the courageous and explosive disclosures revealed in the House Benghazi hearing yesterday by the three brave State Department career employees, there was a brief but monumental point that had been made by the acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Counterterrorism, Mr. Mark Thompson, that underscored Einstein’s dictum.

This of course is referring to the non-quantifiable attribute that true American warriors know innately, intuitively, without word or question, that would appear foreign, even unpalatable and possibly irresponsible, to most non-warrior, corporate, administrative, legal and other “risk-averse” types;  

Americans, despite the odds, despite the risk, despite the consequences, do not leave their fellow warriors behind.

As a former retired Marine Infantry Officer, Mr. Thompson had that ethos ingrained into his DNA once he emerged as a Second Lieutenant from the crucible that is Marine Corps Officer Candidate School. For thirteen weeks plus another arduous six months at the unique Marine Corps Officer Basic School, and another 12 weeks of the intense and physically grueling advanced Infantry Officers Course he was evaluated and assessed on being able, among other key factors, weigh risk versus gain, and to know, more importantly, when risk is secondary to mission accomplishment or failure. He was also trained and it had been lectured, drilled, and exercised into his young officer psyche that the very essence of what allows Marines (insert Rangers, SEALs, Special Forces) the extra fortitude, resilience, and initiative on the battle field that often separates the American fighting man from his global counterparts is that he knows, beyond a doubt, and in every circumstance, if there is a chance…however so slight…however so dangerous…however so risky…his comrades will not leave him behind. AMERICANS DO NOT LEAVE THEIR COMRADES BEHIND.

More accurately, American fighting men do not make conscience decisions to leave other American fighting men behind.

As a former Naval Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape Instructor teaching America’s elite and specialized personnel how to survive behind enemy lines, evade enemy capture, resist capture and enemy exploitation, and escape to the proverbial light, I can personally attest to that ethos, that of never leaving anyone behind, is at the core, the foundation, the molecular essence of America’s warrior class for surviving, emerging, and succeeding in hellish, harsh, hostile environments…like, oh, Benghazi on September 11^th, 2012. This was exhibited with valor, a disregard for personal safety, and an ingrained fundamental understanding of the unique American fighting spirit by none other than that of former Navy Special Operators Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. Both of these former SEALs were no longer on active duty…they were not in Benghazi as combatants, nor were they charged with providing soldiering skills or Spec Ops acumen in a combatant construct. They were civilians, working as contractors and on a mission that was not combat or “kinetic” action oriented. However, the first thing they did, once hostilities broke out, was to “turn to” retrieve small arms, and close with, locate, and engage the enemy by fire and movement. As the reports bear out, they were engaged in combat for over six hours (a very difficult thing to do…especially when you are two Americans fighting what has been reported, up to sixty hostile terrorists), and they reportedly recaptured the consulate grounds for a period of time before they shifted to either secure or defend the Consulate Annex. It would be where they died fighting in pursuit of “not leaving anyone behind” while trying to locate the Ambassador and other disaggregated embassy personnel.

Simultaneously, LTCOL Gibson, the reported Special Operations Element Leader located in Tripoli has made contact with his Chain of Command to initiate a flight from Tripoli to Benghazi to reinforce beleaguered and exhausted personnel embroiled in the ongoing terror attack in and around the consulate and annex where Woods and Doherty were holding up their end of the bargain. As damning, and frankly shocking, testimony from the whistleblowers revealed, Lt. Col Gibson and his small contingent of accompanying Special Operators (4-5 men), itching at the bit to “turn to” and head for the sound of gun fire,  were subsequently denied authority to board the airplane spinning on the tarmac to head for Benghazi that night. What Mr. Thompson, and his fellow whistleblower colleagues, knew all too well that night was something extremely profound that they, along with LTCOL Gibson and his team knew, that every American should rudimentarily understand;

The cavalry didn’t show up. Few things are more un-American than that.

The “Fighting Man’s Code of Conduct has six articles in it. It is something, that at some point, every American warrior has memorized or been intimately familiar with. It deals primarily aspects of capture and captivity as a prisoner of war; however the tenets are wide-ranging for all American warriors. Articles 1, 2, and 6 are especially relevant to all American warriors in combat and hostile action;  

Number One- I am an American fighting man. I serve in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

Number Two-I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender my men while they still have the means to resist.

Number Six-I will never forget that I am an American fighting man, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

Additionally, and probably very near and dear to the hearts of LTCOL Gibson’s Special Operators that were Ranger trained as Army Special Forces troops is the poignant and most applicable line from the Ranger’s Creed;

Energetically will I meet the enemies of my country. I shall defeat them on the field of battle for I am better trained and will fight with all my might. Surrender is not a Ranger word. I will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country.

And, finally, we can see the ethos that fueled Messrs Woods and Doherty in their waning hours in Benghazi before their reception into Valhalla. From the SEAL Creed;

My loyalty to Country and Team is beyond reproach. I humbly serve as a guardian to my fellow Americans always ready to defend those who are unable to defend themselves. I do not advertise the nature of my work, nor seek recognition for my actions. I voluntarily accept the inherent hazards of my profession, placing the welfare and security of others before my own.

As depicted in the movie, “A Few Good Men”, Colonel Nathan R. Jessup, portrayed by Jack Nicholson, very aptly points out in his courtroom speech as to the veracity of these creeds and codes;

“…You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as a backbone of a life time defending something….you use them as a punch line…”

The main stream media, with the NY Times, Washington Post, and NBC asleep at the switch, has missed, or consciously ignored, the vital and stark aspects to the whole Benghazi ordeal. From the emergence of a cover-up, political expediency over US security and diplomatic concerns, obfuscation and minimizing of the impact and ramifications of Sunday talk shows, and “videos” over truth, intimidation and tacit and direct pressure applied to key officials in the Benghazi incident, and the deplorable and crass actions, or inactions, by Democratic House members toward the whistleblowers or any other American simply wanting to get to the truth, Benghazi has deep and lasting aspects that affect seriously equities within the US security apparatus. However, one thing that stands out as captured by Mr. Thompson is whether the Democrat Party congressional enablers, and their army of sycophantic pundits within the MSM will ever reach an epiphany or not on just how dangerous their omissions and commissions  in support of what looks increasingly like a cover-up. If America’s warriors, diplomats, or intelligence operatives do not believe they are backed and supported by their government, even when the perceived “juice” is not worth the “squeeze” as illustrated in the feign attempts by the Pentagon and senior State and Administration officials are clinging to, it is the beginning of the end for the very American warrior ethos and an unquantifiable attribute that can make or break warriors on the battlefield, or the willingness to take the “risk” where others dare not. Mr. Thompson knew this inherently, and it was probably one of the main reasons he felt compelled to put his own career and welfare at risk. It clearly is something very few, if any, within the Administration, State, or key Pentagon leadership seem to acknowledge or appear concerned at all. This is, in my mind, why the Democrats, the left-enabling media, and others are prepared to sacrifice a key American warrior ethos for political expediency and maintaining the false narrative to assist in propelling Mrs. Clinton into the 2016 Whitehouse and protecting the legacy of Barack Obama.   

In yesterday’s Boston Globe, Globe Staff writers Brian Bender and Noah Bierman report that the Russian government contacted US officials “multiple times” regarding marathon bombing suspect #1, Tamerlin Tsarnaev , and their concern with his potential ties to Chechen Jihadist extremism.

Multiple times…

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/04/23/russia-contacted-fbi-multiple-times-concerns-about-alleged-boston-marathon-bomber/ND0bhUdq1Tp1mRuC8xlb8N/story.html?s_campaign=sm_tw

Additionally, The Globe is reporting the once impenetrable “stove pipes of excellence” between the major US security and intelligence agencies that were supposedly broken down and opened up after the 9/11 Commission apparently were not “broken down” nor “opened up” nearly enough as witnessed by the inability of either Department of Homeland Security (DHS…not to be confused with the Defense HUMINT Service within the Defense Intelligence Agency) or the FBI to have properly tracked and shared information regarding the elder Tsarnaev and his alleged trip to and potential contacts in Russia in 2012. Having worked on Joint Task Forces and within interagency working groups, it is not surprising that “F.B.I.” still stands for “Fails Being Integrated.”  The years leading up to the advent of both the DHS and the uber-intelligence overseer position of Director of National Intelligence (DNI, again, not to be confused with the Director of Naval Intelligence) were strewn with debate as to how these additional layers within the security and decision-making apparatus were truly going to enhance and make more effective and efficient our information-sharing, coordination, joint operations and collaborative efforts against an increasingly emboldened enemy (Who is that you ask? More on that in a moment). In an effort to bin and control the myriad of agencies that touch on security of the Homeland, and supposedly would “streamline” information and collaboration between the slough of agencies to include ATF, DEA, ICE, Border Patrol, Federal Marshals, TSA, among others with the other key intelligence agencies under the new DNI (CIA, NSA, FBI, among others…), Congress decided to implement these two new organizations, ostensibly to better manage and coordinate information and command & control (C2) across the US intelligence and security enterprise. So instead of the Director of “Central” Intelligence, we created a new layer, the Director of “National” Intelligence…clearly, the term “Central” vice “National” was not cohesive and salient enough to invoke “focus and control” over the intelligence community. Yet, relabeling and inserting the position of “National” Intelligence certainly hasn’t coagulated the effort any greater given the seemingly damaging failure by both the FBI and DHS over “where was Tsarnaev, and what was he doing there?”….even when the Russian Federal Security Services (FSB…Federalnaya Sluzhba Bezopostnosti for you Russophiles ) attempted to sprinkle the crumbs, multiple times, for us leading right to him.  The snap judgment after 9/11 by Congress and the National Command Authority to create these overly burdensome, confusing, and inefficient bureaucratic layers I have coined the “Department of Redundancy Department” have not added value or performance to the decreasingly secure stature and anxiety-filled atmosphere we, the citizens of the United States, now find ourselves. Twelve years after 9/11, with a decade of fighting and killing various forms of terrorists all around the world, we are still plagued by an inefficient domestic security bureaucracy that, it appears more and more painfully, has let the American people down…yet again. This is not to be conflated with the remarkable local and regional response we witnessed by authorities in Boston…sadly, after the fact…I am referring to the existing Federal apparatus and mechanism in place that is supposed to have been working more effectively, in greater collaboration, with smoother information-sharing, as a result of the 9/11 Commission, and all the billions spent in making the entire process more adroit and seamless in its charge.

Nope…apparently not.

Now, couple this ineffective and cumbersome bureaucracy with the intellectually-stunted and false narrative of the Administration-led, media-enabled, and politically charged quagmire of political correctness when referring to Islamist-Jihadist terror; you have a very dangerous and incredulous situation for millions of Americans. The Administration is in the proverbial Public Policy corner and has taken yet another terror incident body blow from encroaching Jihadist terror threats from Underwear and Time Square Bombers and Jihadist shooters including Major Hasan at Ft Hood and the Arkansas Jihadist at the Army Recruiting Station…and now the Tsarnaev Brothers…with the specter of Benghazi still quaffing through the Congressional halls and, to the Administration’s chagrin, the recesses of the consciousness of the American people. With all of this overwhelming evidence that Jihadists have been actively pursuing ways to kill Americans…in America…we are continuing to be fed the BS sandwich from senior leaders within the US government from the President, Vice President, Napolitano,  Clinton, and numerous Democratic Congressional leaders that the threat is not Jihadist or Islamist…with every conceivable and contrived excuse mangled and twisted in non-sequiturs, malaprops, and concerted mis-information to describe what anyone over the age of twelve could describe in a very simply and clear phrase; Jihadists are at war with the United States, but we will not acknowledge that, nor will we declare war on them.     

This combination, both the indifferent and stupid bureaucracy and the dangerous and malevolent immorality of political correctness, is at its core the most egregious and damning single aspect to our National Security…and it begs a question I am sure we will never hear asked in the wispy world of media punditry….when does incompetence and woeful disregard of one’s sworn oath become negligence and treasonous?

 Twenty-four hour ubiquitous and in-depth television coverage rings the proverbial “dinner” bell for any would-be Jihadists that America is primed for a “death-by-a-thousand-cuts” approach to terrorism as one nineteen year old man flummoxed an entire regional security apparatus for nearly two days with items anyone could buy at any standard kitchen or appliance store, then used them indiscriminately against innocent US citizens in soft targets environments.

Sadly, the Obama Administration over the past several years has taken the tact of minimizing any and all potential Jihadist actions into some obscure “workplace” violence episodes, even when “Allah Ahkbar” is shouted by the perpetrator as he proceeds to kill over a dozen US Army personnel.  Foreign terrorists brutally murder four US diplomatic personnel in a highly coordinated terror attack against a US consulate on foreign soil, and the Administration, to this day, denies its severity or significance vis-à-vis terror, stalling and making difficult the access to the remaining survivors. As a consequence, we as a nation were lulled into a false sense of security for crass political expediency. In the meantime, perhaps thousands of disaffected youths across the nation and globe, spending as many hours on Jihadist websites as one may take to acquire an Associate’s degree, watched as they saw fellow “brothers” (The Tsarnaevs), down with the cause, wreak havoc on a major American city, all the while creating doubt, fear, anxiety, and instability on an unprecedented and massive scale. This was exacerbated by the wall-to-wall 24/7 coverage by all the major cable outlets, and highlighted with “extended coverage” programming by the network channels, then beamed all over the country as these two men captivated the nation as they killed again and bombed again throughout the ordeal. Many tout that the devices used by the Boston bombers were crude and unsophisticated; yet, they truly succeeded in creating the very affect they were searching for all along; terror.  Though three people were killed immediately as a result of the bomb’s detonation (compared to the nearly three thousand that died in New York on September 11^th), nearly two-hundred were wounded, with scores permanently maimed and disfigured for life. For terrorists, that’s a pretty good day.

Now the political hacks and “insta-terror expert” pundits on both sides of the aisle are filling the empty airwaves with meaningless and mindless debate on the whether-tos and why-fors of potential political and legal recourse and ramifications from the Boston Bombings. Many Americans are now painfully awakening to the dark nexus between US national security and immigration/border policy, al-Qaeda supported Chechen terror-groups, and the global scourge that is an increasing Internet-fueled Jihadist terror-sympathizer base. Some have argued that the Tsarnaev Brothers were more similar to the Columbine killers than Jihadist terrorists; in either case, they have been scorched into the annals of terror-infamy while their images, stories, plights, druthers, backgrounds, and agendas are strewn across the airwaves and digital-waves in a sick and twisted anthology of their short-lived, but greatest hits. If you are a crazed Columbine-like disturbed youth, or a hate-filled would-be Jihadist with apocalyptic delusions, you now know you don’t have to hijack a plane, or fill your underwear with explosives, or try to drive an explosive-laden car into Time Square; it’s just the little things that can place an entire city, region, or nation into a frenzied grip of fear, despair, and terror.  Whether the Elder Tsarnaev was given terror-based instruction whilst on his little six-month “vacation” to Chechnya back in 2012 or not, his radicalization and focused hatred for the US did intensify as seen by his disturbing YouTube and Facebook postings upon his return. Even if he was directed by a higher nefarious organization, and whether that is ever confirmed or not, he can still be viewed as a “homegrown” enthusiast and hoisted high in the Jihadist mythology as a “you-too-can-do-it” success story ripe for the pages of Al-Qaeda’s Inspire magazine. From a terrorist’s perspective, they do not have to martyr themselves needlessly…they can get a lot of “juice” for relatively little “squeeze.”…and, if they play their cards right, they can survive and talk about it or Tweet about it later. The Boston Bombers displayed more than just a “one-of” terror event; they demonstrated just how vulnerable we as a nation truly are. That it can be small, soft area actions against a relatively soft target that can spread wide-ranging panic in a very short yet severe impacting amount of time. I fear, life as we knew it, with regards to US-targeted terror incidents, changed irrevocably that day….and the bad guys saw it, know it, and will morph to exploit it.

The one saving grace is precisely how the greater Boston residents reacted in the immediate aftermath of the four day ordeal; they responded by flooding the streets with overwhelming gratitude to Law Enforcement personnel; they showed up to Fenway Park in massive numbers, sang the Star Spangled Banner, waving American Flags, and shouting “Boston-strong” and “U-S-A.” They showed they were not going to cower in the face of these petty little men and their hate-filled rhetoric and actions. However, that isn’t some magical force-field. It isn’t going to stop the next wave, or the one after that. We need our national leaders to stop conflating terror with petty crime; stop with the dangerous and intellectually false notions of political-correctness and call Jihadists for what it is; a maniacal philosophy that is the antithesis of decency and civility. We didn’t take a politically correct stance against either Nazism, or Imperial Japanese Bushido-Shintoism in the cult-following of the Emperor. We crafted a strategic war plan against a well identified enemy, and then we proceeded to wipe the earth clean of them. What is inconceivable to grasp for many Americans, especially those of us familiar with security, strategy, and policy, is we cannot collectively agree on identifying the enemy…how can one defeat an enemy if at first you cannot define it?

If we see more small-scale attacks as we saw with the latest of the streaks of US-based Jihadist-terror (Major Hasan, Underwear bomber, Time Square, and now Boston) we can expect a death by a thousand cuts if we do not take this war against Jihadists in the most serious form.

            Having spent over 20 years in the US Military, plus several years associated with the US defense establishment, I have had a few opportunities to observe North Korean military behavior. By no means an expert, I have had assignments and responsibilities directly related to operational planning in various capacities with regards to a potential conflict on the Korean peninsula. Western politicians and military observers have monitored blustering by the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea’s (North Korea, or DPRK) two previous leaders, Kim Il-sung, and his son, Kim Jong-il over the decades with greater skepticism as the DPRK demonstrates it’s systematic, near-clockwork like belligerence. This is a well-worn strategy by the North in an attempted to extort concessions from the world community as they paint a horrific picture that if their petty demands are not met, the remaining alternative is much worse. The new leader, Kim Jong-un however, is young, and not savvy in the internal or external considerations, or limitations, over high stakes brinksmanship his father and grandfather perfected over decades. Many Americans, who probably didn’t give the DPRK much consideration a month ago, are asking some basic questions regarding the harsh and bellicose behavior and rhetoric spewing from what can only appear to the international security novice as “a punk.” Nearly half a generation of Americans have grown up with America de-throning “turds” like Kim Jong–un in the form of Saddam, Qaddaffi, Mubarak, Bin Laden, The Taliban, even Assad on the ropes, and (inadequately) trying to thwart Ahmadinejad from acquiring nuclear weapons. Who is this pudgy twerp who can easily be mistaken for the “Gangman Style” rapper Psy? 

            The whole overblown thing would be met by most with disdain and indifference except for three crucial issues;

·      One. The DPRK is a state totally and completely forged in paranoia and fear. The DPRK has a massive conventional force even by international standards, boasting the fourth largest military in the world, equipped with massive, deadly, albeit dated, military hardware in the forms of thousands of main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, short and medium range surface-to-surface missiles, tens of thousands of towed and self-propelled artillery tubes, sophisticated surface-to-air missiles, and over a million soldiers in various states of readiness (some barely fed and clothed, while hundreds of thousands of others are highly invested in the regime, equipped with state-of-the-art small arms, crew served weapons, adequate air, ground, and maritime mobility platforms, and are fanatical to the regime in a way we haven’t seen since the days of Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia.) The entire state is poised, bred, and built for war. All of these forces are often covered and concealed in highly complex underground facilities or in rocky mountainside bunkers and hardened villainous-looking fortresses right out of a cheesy Bond movie, strewn across the entire country. The regime makes a conscious decision in its calculus to be able to afford the resources, treasure, and manpower to the whole endeavor. North Korea in addition to being a state built on war, it is also a gulag state, with an estimated one million people in concentration camps, forced into slave labor, starving, and often resorting to cannibalism just to make it through the harsh North Korean winters. It is a nightmare right out of any dystopian alternate reality science-fiction novel…but it is quite real, and quite sinister.

·      Two. As if that alone was not enough to open anyone’s eyes as to the threat the North can present to the US, its South Korean and Japanese allies, it has developed perhaps the most prolific and largest special operations force in the world. The open source estimates have the entire force at over 80,000 special troops, however some estimates say that number may be as high as 150,000. These are the troops that are given the most sophisticated equipment, are the best fed, trained, and groomed to conduct a wide variety of unconventional, clandestine, even covert operations spanning from pre-hostilities surreptitious infiltration into South Korea, Japan, and other US or allied facilities across the Pacific (perhaps even in the US itself) for preparation in conducting infrastructure sabotage, assassination of key military and political leaders, and generally wreak havoc across the theater of operations. This can (and will) be accomplished through hundreds of hidden tunnels leading across the mountainous terrain separating the North and South, maritime and littoral insertion routes, and massive airborne and glider operations into southern airspaces and key military facilities. They will neglect all aspects of the Geneva Conventions as they will wear South Korean military and law enforcement uniforms or civilian attire, and are expected to kill as many people as they can to spread chaos and fear into the civilian population to the south, and most likely in Japan in and around the many US facilities there. This is an asymmetric lever the DPRK plans to pull as they know their conventional forces will be afflicted with heavy losses from sustained US and allied air bombardment and precision guided munitions attacks against key DPRK Command and Control nodes. Any capitulation or “cease-fire” calculus will have to consider these special DPRK forces will be imbedded in the South and possibly in Japan conducting insurgent-style attacks for weeks, possibly longer. Given what transpired in Iraq after the invasion, the North Koreans may be planning an insurgency-style campaign as negotiations or discussions drag on. This irregular and asymmetric DPRK special force strategy can not be over emphasized; it is a massive force, and it presents a great deal of difficult challenges for allied planners as to precisely how it will be mitigated, thwarted, and eventually neutralized.

·      Three. As we have been watching the international community struggle with the horrible, inconceivable, and geo-strategic game-changing possibility of Iran attaining nuclear weapons, we are struck with the irrefutable and stark reality of a regime that may be as bad, if not worse, already having acquired them; North Korea. North Korea has had at least three observable nuclear tests over the last 7 years, each with a greater kiloton yield than the former (conservative estimates have between 3-8 kilotons, just slightly smaller than the US atomic detonations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Though by all estimates, the DPRK nuclear arsenal is crude, and rather unsophisticated, it is still nuclear, with an estimated potential for 5-15 devices available (based on enrichment projections, both uranium and plutonium). Unlike the other nuclear powers, US, Russia, China, France, Britain, Israel, Pakistan, India, the DPRK is said not to possess the capability to launch or deliver the weapons as payload in a theater-range or intercontinental-ballistic-missile (ICBM) able to strike the continental United States. However, the DPRK could use the weapons as denied-area weapons, placing them in strategic avenues of approach, or as doomsday type “last-resort” weapons in key locations throughout North Korea. Though not likely, it is conceivable a nuclear device could be smuggled across the boarder into South Korea, or on a maritime platform and sailed into Japan. The DPRK also is estimated to have a massive chemical weapons arsenal in addition to its massive conventional and nuclear arsenals. As we lament Syria’s passion of chemical weapons, the DPRK has an equally as sinister amount of sarin, mustard, and V-agents (lethal nerve agents…think, human insecticide), and is believed to have perfected the technique of binary-agent storage and delivery, thus significantly cutting down on inadvertent leakage and exposure, and greater tactical mobility in the weapons delivery and placement themselves. As far as placing chemical warheads on some of its existing missile platforms, this is certainly possible, and they are believed to possess that capability for what some observers believe could be as many as over 10,000 tons of chemical weapons.

 

            As bleak and as unimaginable the DPRK three-pronged arsenal appears (and make no mistake…it is about as bleak as it gets), there are a couple of issues that do not get a great deal of consideration as the faces on the cable networks continue to scramble for intelligence experts, military strategists, and other assorted pundits; Warnings & Indicators, and acknowledged suicide.  Conservatively speaking, the North-South Korean border is probably one of the most monitored areas in the entire world. Over the decades, the DPRK has feigned, through razor edge maneuvering, troop movements, reserve force recalls, movement of key leaders and standard radio and other communications chatter. They have mock railroad movements, and other “indicator” type actions that test and bluster to the observing South Korean and US platforms they are on the move. Yet, those actions nearly always come right to the brink, ten recede. What has not been reported in the press (yet) is whether any Indications and Warnings (I&W) have produced any discernable concerns as to intentions by the DPRK regime. In order for some of the really bad things to happen (missile launches, massive DPRK special unit action, invasion) there would have to be some fairly routine and observable actions on the part of the DPRK leadership and military hierarchy that would prompt US and South Korean planners to adjust to a higher state of readiness. We have seen some precautionary actions by the US in the form or Theater-High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) batteries being deployed, as there has also been some other US and South Korean naval movement in the Sea of Japan along the Korean peninsula. However, the B-2 flights that got a great deal of press, along with the deployment of the F-22 Raptor stealth fighters was part of a pre-planned military exercise that is an annual event. The DPRK often plans their provocative actions during well-established and routine exercise Joint exercise events with South Korean and US forces. 

            The other issue is assured suicide on the part of the DPRK if they take greater or more provocative steps leading to full-scale hostilities. Though they posses a massive conventional arsenal, coupled with their extraordinary infiltration and sabotage units and their nuclear arsenal, they must know that if they take that last step; bomb Seoul with a massive artillery strike (including on American troops stationed there), threaten South Korea or Japan with missiles, with potential chemical warheads, or conduct a massive invasion, those would all trigger an unrelenting response by the South Koreans and the US. If they did use chemical weapons, or, God forbid, detonated a nuclear device, they would be annihilated with a like response. It is American National Policy that we can (and most likely would) respond to a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack by the DPRK with a nuclear response.  As was debated on a popular radio show recently, would President Obama use nuclear weapons, say, if the North launched a massive artillery strike on the South’s capital, Seoul?  I do not think so. He is very keen on his place in American history; his being the first African-American president is one of the “firsts” he enjoys. Being the only post-WWII president to authorize the release of nuclear weapons, and against another Asian population, I believe he would not do so. Yes, the cold hard reality of the massive causalities we would incur as a result of a full-scale war with the North is too horrific to comprehend. However, I do not see the president using nukes unless he had irrefutable proof of DPRK intentions of either using chemical or nuclear weapons.

            Lastly, and what has gained a little traction in the mainstream media is the possibility (perhaps increasing with every day) of miscalculation on the part of the young, perhaps naïve, and untested leader; Kim Jong-Un (did you think I was going to say President Obama?…) With a great deal of new players on the scene; The new South Korean President, Kim Jong –Un himself, and a new US cabinet with Chuck Hagel and John Kerry (not the brightest candles on the cake), and a war-weary Obama, perhaps reluctant to “go the distance” with the North, may add fuel to the miscalculating fire.

            As the days and weeks move ahead, look for any I&Ws that exceed the “norm.” If we see massive troop or large missile movement, rockets being fueled, or the DPRK leadership goes silent, then we need to be concerned. 

              As a young Marine 2^nd Lieutenant, I can still remember what the ole’ Gunnery Sergeant said as we listened to him much like young philosophers might have soaked in what Plato imparted; “ You can delegate responsibility, Lieutenant, and that is why we have NCOs (sergeants), but you can never delegate accountability…when you are in charge…you are accountable…period.” This is inherent and engrained in every officer in the Marine Corps, the Naval Service et al, and I’m sure throughout our Armed Services. It is the cornerstone of leadership…you cannot have authority without accountability…it is the very essence of one’s charge, your duty to both be “in charge” (authority) and where the “buck stops” (accountable).   One can be responsible for any number of things, but most often there is a supervisor, officer, or manager that is ultimately accountable for the success and failure when things happen or do not happen as expected, anticipated, or planned.  

Nowhere is this more evident, nor is there greater precedent than the authority and accountability of a Naval Vessel Captain at Sea. Specifically, we have seen time and time again where Navy and Marine Officers have been relieved of duty forthwith when their charge (a naval vessel or a military unit) has been compromised or in some fashion failed in their mission or exposed the ship or unit to unacceptable or unnecessary risk. It is well known that even if the captain of the ship is asleep in his stateroom, if the ship runs aground or was to collide with another vessel at sea, the accountability is solely and strictly with the captain…he is accountable. The navigation officer or the “officer of the watch”, having been assigned to the specific task of steering the ship from the bridge is designated as “responsible” for carrying out the orders and intent of the captain. The captain has delegated his responsibility for navigation of the vessel to the “officer of the watch”,  just as he has delegated his responsibility for ensuring the engines are running properly, effectively, and efficiently to the Engineering Officer, or the daily scheduling and execution of shipboard activities to his Operations Officer, and the moral and well-being of the sailors to the Command Master Chief…each are responsible to the captain for ensuring a synergistic effort to operate a large naval vessel to execute the captain’s orders and intent. Naturally, he cannot do all the activities required to operate the ship himself, but his specific experiences, education, background, and confidence from his superiors is what constitutes their bestowing upon him the accountability for what that ship does or fails to do.

He delegates his responsibility, though the accountability is his and his alone.

                So here we are, four months later after the gruesome murders of four Americans, including one career diplomat assigned as the Ambassador to Libya and no one….no one…has been deemed accountable. (Note: Secretary of State Clinton made a statement that she was “responsible” for the events in Benghazi…though she has never claimed accountability…) Murders of diplomats are rare. It happens, and is universally condemned by nearly every civilized nation because of the sanctity of diplomatic affairs and civility among nations. Diplomats are not warriors. They are often our last line of defense “left of boom” before war or a military action is considered necessary. However, though deaths of diplomats are rare, the death of Ambassadors is even rarer. It is universally recognized that US embassy compounds in foreign lands are sovereign American territory. An attack on a US diplomatic post does constitute an act of war. Whether a particular Presidential Administration chooses to act or recognize that, often based on geo-political realities, is another matter. The murder of an American Ambassador is the diplomatic equivalent to the unprovoked sinking of an American Naval vessel. If a US Naval Captain had inadvertently or irresponsibly wandered into North Korean territorial waters, and was subsequently fired upon, or worse, sunk, as a result of his/her negligence, would he or she not have been relieved (provided they survived) immediately?

                Of course.

                In the recent congressional hearings with Secretary Clinton at the forefront, there has been mention of the Accountability Review Board (ARB). However, the ARB, did not find the State Department’s “Captain” remotely accountable. In fact, as remarkable as it sounds, the head of the State Department, Ms Clinton, “Captain of the ship” was not even part of the Accountability Review Board investigation…in other words, it would have been if the Captain of a US Naval Vessel that ran aground or sailed off course into hostile waters was not considered in the investigation as to why said vessel ran aground or sailed into unauthorized and hostile waters.

                Ms Clinton is many things…but she is not stupid. She has been considered by many for a Presidential run in 2016. Scandals, even the perception of scandal, have a long shelf life, and no one knows that better than the wife of Bill Clinton and the former partner of the infamous Rose Law Firm, embroiled in the Whitewater insurance debacle and the mysterious deaths surrounding the scandal.   As a lawyer, she clearly recognizes the meaning of words and the power of rhetoric.  Ms. Clinton will, with tears in her eyes, feigned indignation in her voice, and televangelist-style righteous purpose craft the narrative into how committed she is to getting to the bottom of the Benghazi attack. After all, she is responsible.

                Yet, how convenient when she bears no accountability for the incident, no scrutiny from an adoring and fawning Left wing media, nor interference from the powerful and influential present Democrat Party, the Senate, and the President.

                Having leaders with no accountability is like rockets with no guidance system; they can go anywhere and cause a lot of damage. What’s left is the rest of us picking up the pieces.

As the gun debate rages in America, it is irrefutable that Newtown, or any of the other recent massacres involving deranged murderers over the last 10 years, was shockingly horrific and jolted the psyche of our nation. It raised to the frontal lobe of many Americans the question of where we prioritize the safety of our most vulnerable in comparison to, lets say, our money or our elected officials (many who have paid security entourages for their personal protection).  However, clearly, after the inexplicable events in Newtown transpired, we see the Gun Control advocates once again taking the extreme position of gun restriction, including some calls for confiscation of weapons from law-abiding citizens, in an attempt to bolster their narrow political agenda on the backs of the personal tragedy of the Newtown parents and the community writ large. This in and of itself is a sad commentary on just how ignorant the American populace has become on what the Second Amendment is for, or how vocal a small but virulent minority can be to craft a political narrative in the throws of tragedy, regardless of how skewed and inaccurate it may be.

A great deal of the debate centers on the “assault-weapons” and the “high capacity” magazines (the canisters that feed the semi-automatic rifle chamber) used with semi-automatic pistols and rifles. In short, one can tune into virtually any mainstream news channel or opinion show and this topic, specifically the “assault” nature of the weapons and the magazines used with them, is being debated (more accurately, being villified). Gun-restriction advocates will often distil the argument to something like,” Why does anyone need a high powered assault rifle or pistol to game shoot, hunt, or to shoot skeet?” Or, “They aren’t practical for personal defense, because their militarized characteristics make them hard to conceal, or handle without proper training,” or, “if we remove the guns, we remove the capacity for mass-murder and massacres,” or “We pay police and our military to protect us…therefore they are the only ones that need these types of weapons.”(Something to that effect).

On the surface, if one was not familiar with American history, or the intent and context of the Second Amendment, those arguments might resonate a bit more succinctly…here is what the actual amendment states:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Much legal and social argument and parlor-style debate has unfolded from these 27 poignant and powerful words. There are legal scholars that specialize in not only constitutional law and the amendments in particular, but also concentrate primarily on the Second Amendment as a field of expertise. If you can believe it, for many experts and aficionados of the interpretation of the amendment, one sticking point is the placing of a simple comma after the word “arms” followed by “shall not be infringed.” Why in the blazes would something so apparently obscure be so terribly important when interpreting and defining the intent and scope of the amendment? As clearly as I can ascertain, it is the difference between what a “well-regulated militia” constitutes, and what an individual can do with regards to the “right to bear arms.” Is it that the “well regulated militia” has the right to bear arms? Therefore the debate can center on the definition of “well regulated,” i.e. the militia needs to be “regulated.”  Or does it underscore the right of the “people” i.e. individual persons that make up a “militia” to bear the arms? One interpretation focuses on the “militia” and how it can be regulated, and the other on the individual’s right to bear arms that may make up a militia. Perhaps esoteric, but it is important nonetheless. Though I cannot quantify it, I would surmise that the vast majority of gun owners in the US probably interpret the amendment focusing on the individual’s ability and right to bear arms, vice regulating the militia and thus affecting the individual within a militia, and to what extent, and what parameters the militia can exercise. This interpretation focuses on curtailing what type or scope of “arms” an individual citizen can or cannot possess.  

Like with many things legal and administrative, the rhetoric and meanings of the detailed words can, and are, defined and debated to great lengths to craft and mold a particular agenda. I have had discussions with gun-control advocates that insist “regulated” is to mean, “controlled, monitored, or restricted” in some way. “Regulate” can be defined “to govern or direct according to rule.” It can also be defined as “to bring order, method, or uniformity to.” The latter is more of a process oriented definition, where “well-regulated” means orderly, disciplined, coordinated in its character.” The former is viewed as in “regulating use, content, or scope” of the militia, focusing on the what the militia can use, vice how the militia is employed. One interpretation could be seen, for example, as one hundred militia men, well equipped, well trained, organized, disciplined and orderly. The same word, “regulated” can be crafted to lead one to believe the “equipment, deployment, formations, use, and implementation” needs to be regulated. Obviously, these are two very different perspectives, deriving two completely different constructs regarding what, who, and how the “militia” is to be regulated.  Again, I prescribe to the former, where “regulated” refers to the manner in which the militia conducts itself and not the restriction of equipment (arms) with which they are to operate.

For me, and I would conjecture for millions of Americans, it is the latter part of the amendment that makes its intent clear and complete as to what the Founding Fathers meant regarding the right to bear arms; “…shall not be infringed.”  My agenda, and that of many law-abiding bearers of arms, can be clarified fairly simply. I do not want weapons (yes, weapons, not sporting goods) so I can hunt…though I like to hunt…nor do I want them to skeet shoot…though I have enjoyed skeet shooting…nor do I want them to collect…though, if I were rich enough, I would probably enjoy that too…no, I want to possess weapons of a near or equal caliber (pun intended) of that of my local constabulary, and that of most federal forces…period. Why? Why would I as a law–abiding American citizen in my right mind, need a weapon that is comparable to my state or federal law-enforcement or military counterpart? It is simple;

When that official is ordered to capture or kill me because the government has deviated so far from the origins of the constitution that it has concluded I am no longer acting legally, or has decided my formerly constitutional held views were now deemed “subversive or traitorous”, I am guaranteed the ability to give any potential jack-booted thug, who himself once was a law abiding citizen, a moment of serious pause before he decides to kick my door down, or attempt to arrest or kill me because I no longer adhere to his government’s new political, social, legal, bureaucratic, or cultural construct. 

We cannot afford the government being the only authority on the block that can force decisions or make the rules beyond the scope of democracy against its citizens. That is the classic definition of a “bully.” I don’t like bullies…individuals or governments.

Because the gun issue narrative has shifted so far from the original intent, and most Americans are exposed to deceptive alternative interpretations of the amendment through left-leaning educational institutions and falsely echoed by equally as left-leaning media outlets and pundits, this view, that of a citizenry defending itself against a potentially hostile and tyrannical government, might seem extreme…some may even call it “nutter.” However, a much smarter and savvier political figure once said of America that we are one generation away from loosing our freedom if we are not familiar and made self-aware of our history, constitution, and the precious nature of our fragile republic. The Founding Fathers believed this right, that of free people able to defend themselves against a potentially tyrannical government, was so important that it was only trumped in order of precedence to that of free speech and freedom of religion. Many see the First and Second Amendments as co-dependent; i.e. you cannot have the First Amendment without the Second Amendment.  I believe that in my soul.  I also believe a government that (increasingly) gives you anything can take away everything.  Sadly, as the self-touted most prosperous and free people on Earth, perhaps in the history of mankind, our Achilles Heel as Americans is our ignorant complacency and apathy in general to our civic rights and responsibilities to maintain our delicate ideal. Many of us cannot comprehend the idea of a tyrannical government in our lifetimes, or that our rights could be so infringed within the US. I’m sure the Tsarist Russian gentry-class of the 1890s, or Germans capitalists of the 1920s, or the millions of Ukrainian collective farmers and serfs of the 1930s, or Cuban bussinessmen of the 1950s, or the Chinese intelligentsia of the 1960s, or the Cambodian agrarian peasants of the 1970s hadn’t imagined pervasive, oppressive, and intransigent dictatorships that stripped and outlawed much of their civic rights, livelihoods, dignity, and futures.   

But that, of course couldn’t happen here…right?

Like the ability to place the Ten Commandments in a class room, or establish a faith-based club on a school campus? Or, have a large prayer group in your private home? Or exclaim “Merry Christmas” at your place of work? Perhaps it becomes something more pervasive and intrusive, such as a Health Care law that now forces millions of Americans to forgo their personal and faith-based convictions as a result of its implementation. Of course, all of the aforementioned restrictions have been implemented in some form or another across this great nation…what is next?

What are you prepared to do in the event of greater, more restrictive, and potentially draconian or oppressive policies and mandates? i.e. forced to support state-funded euthanasia and abortion, or state-funded support for homosexual life-style “sensitivity” training and K-6 curricula in public schools? Or that Judeo-Christian Western Civilization history will not be taught in high school as the cornerstone of American history or is taught in a pejorative, or scornful light?  What if you and a majority of your community decide the prevailing tax laws are too intrusive and these taxes support, in your vast opinion, a morally corrupt government? You and several within your community are convicted not to adhere to the new immorally and potentially illegal seizures of property and assets because you and your fellow neighbors have concluded the government is overreaching and oppressive. To illustrate, a calamitous debt burden exponentially expands as a result of reckless and irresponsible, or possibly malicious actions (or inactions) on the part of elected officials that far exceeds just fiscal concerns, but now retards and constrains ways our nation can act in any or all of its four pillars of national power on the global stage; diplomatic, industrial, military, or economic. This not only affects our domestic prosperity, but also threatens our national security as it relates to powers positioned to do the US and her citizens ill will, costly geo-political machinations, or even harm. That couldn't happen here....right? Would you defend yourself against this morally corrupt and oppressive regime surreptitiously seizing your assets, property, and funds and crafting an environment of criminalizing formerly law-abiding citizens as a result of their conviction and resistance to said corruption and oppression? How would you defend against that? In a worst-case scenario, the Second Amendment is designed precisely so you can. I wouldn’t advocate insurrection simply because I disagree with elected officials or the will of a majority (no matter how ill-advised and ignorant they had become)…. never…however, I would absolutely advocate defending against a government that unilaterally labels me, or millions of others against their will as “insurgents, traitors, or extremists.”

Governments fear well-armed citizens. That is also irrefutable.

If I ever need to hunt to survive, I can use a high-powered assault rifle to do that…the opposite, unfortunately, but undoubtedly, is not true…I will not be able to defend myself against a well-armed federal or local government force if I, and my fellow citizens, are not equally as “regulated.” Guns are pervasive and are a fact of modern American life. Laws will not eradicate them alone. The murder rate in gun-prohibitive sectors of our country, like Chicago, is proof-positive of that. Chicago had over 500 gun murders in its city limits last year…those limits are some of the most restrictive vis'a'vis guns in the nation. Only a massive social, moral, and spiritual revival could begin to tackle that with any serious intent. No amount of gun-restriction will stop determined, crazed or criminally motivated persons from acquiring illegal arms and committing horrific crimes. They will, however, curtail the law-abiding citizen to defend against localized criminality and possibly tyrannical government forces. As Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, recently said:

“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

That is why this good guy believes in the Second Amendment. 

US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was recently quoted on the alleged actions on the part of Moscow, with President Vladimir Putin at the reins, in the suspected accretion of Russian power in the form of a quasi-Neo Soviet construct based on economic, political and regional equities with former Soviet states.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a5b15b14-3fcf-11e2-9f71-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2EP398K9r

 “There is a move to re-Sovietise the region,” the US secretary of state told a news conference in Dublin hours before going into a meeting with her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, the Financial Times reported. She continued.

 “But let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.”

The FT further stated Mrs. Clinton said efforts at regional hegemony had been accompanied by new campaigns of repression from pro-Moscow regimes throughout the former Soviet Union. Her tone signaled that the US was rethinking its “reset” in relations with Russia, declared in 2009, during which criticism of its human rights record has been muted and Moscow appeared to have a freer hand in the former Soviet region.

The FT article advances that the integration efforts she was referring to were championed by Russian President Vladimir Putin in a newspaper article in October calling for deeper political and economic integration into a “Eurasian Union”.

There certainly aren’t any real quantitative gains on these economic constructs ruminating out of Moscow.  This is nothing new over the last 20 plus years after the fall of the Soviet regime and the struggle Russia has inherited to reminisce on former Soviet and Tsarist greatness. It is no secret within international security and geo-political observers that Russia has taken concerted steps diplomatically, militarily, and economically to advance Russian hegemony on its former periphery. I agree with Ms. Clinton’s initial, albeit, thin accusations of the “threat” of a renewal of the “Soviet Union.”  The stark hypocrisy of the main-stream media, however, is palpable; lest we forget when then-US Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney, accurately illustrated and underscored the threat that present-day Russia presents on the world stage.  

A clear difference here is Romney wasn’t ringing the claxon that the “Soviet Union” was re-emerging. He was chastised and ridiculed for alluding to the substantial advances and indicators by Russian (vice Soviet) diplomatic, military, and political actions and positions across the globe; increased Russian naval presence in the Caribbean, South America, and Mediterranean not seen since the Cold War, Russian UN Security Council overtures and obstinacy in support of rogue or belligerent regimes such as Syria and Iran, Russian military adventurism into neighboring Georgia, and its increased political and economic pressure toward former soviet states such as Ukraine, Armenia, and Moldova. Romney was accurate and timely in his well-founded concerns for Russia as a key, Tier One, security threat to US National interests. However, Ms. Clinton, who appears to agree with Romney on the advance of the Russian ‘threat” scope furthered the concern with what most observers may be not willing to agree; a re-emergence of the Soviet Union.  

During the recent presidential campaign, Romney was thrust onto the international affairs stage by the ubiquitous and unashamed Obama-adoring US press by crafting the former Massachusetts governor as having an arcane “Cold War” mentality, not understanding the nuanced relationship with the “New Russia,” and thus having his “Commander-In-Chief” credibility peppered with inaccuracies and downright falsehoods. Yet, Ms. Clinton, who on the merits, is essentially agreeing with Mr. Romney as to the threat Russia presents, of course after the fact, yet takes the concern to a place where most analysts and security observers do not fear a credible threat; that of a re-Sovietization of former states.  Even though there are paper-fora of “regionalized economic constructs” such as the Moscow-based Eurasian Union, or the free-trade forum of Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Moldova (GUUAM), they are far from any type of formalized political or economic unions that seek holistic integration remotely approaching former Soviet architecture. This doesn’t even address the military or border, security force integration, political and defense apparatus command and control, or breaking down of age-old border and boundary disputes that are at the core of much of the existing tensions between Moscow and its former Soviet partners. There is such a historical, cultural, and social mistrust of Russians by many of the former states populations and political elites that the mere notion of some kind of re-Sovietization by Moscow, even at the titular head of such a construct, is broaching on international security vernacular “punch-line” territory.  It is an absurd notion…not that the Russians might want such a construct, with which Clinton and Romney are in agreement, but that any of the former states, less Belarus, would remotely consider that shackle of Russian-dominated political, social, cultural, and military arrangements ever again.

So, yet again, we see another painful but clear example of dystopian US Press double-speak and pretense regarding its political-undesirables…even when the truth gets in the way.

Here is the letter I have sent to NBC, and plan on following up with CBS, ABC, and the New York Times.

I understand we now have four US Senators demanding the Administration come "clean" on the events that took place in Benghazi on 11 September 2012, and the aftermath of confusion, and apparent ineptitude, at best, and potential obfuscation and covering up of the event following it. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO: NBC Editorial Board

I am a veteran of 20 years of military service and nearly 5 years supporting Naval Special Warfare. As I read through your front-page news, I saw only one story related to the massive and unprecedented cover-up of the catastrophic events that transpired in Benghazi Libya on 11 September 2012. That story was about the republicans “exploiting” the event for political gain.

Though the deaths of 4 American diplomats, including one Ambassador, and the inability or unwillingness of the senior Presidential administration officials getting their press releases straight, or the fact that the security leading to this event was woefully inadequate after numerous and repeated pleas for more assistance, the attack on a British Diplomatic convoy, and several other intelligence and security indicators underscoring the danger there...even after all that, as a veteran, current Government employee serving my nation's armed forces, and a proud and honored US citizen, I can not for the life of me understand how a major news organization, like NBC, can continue to marginalize, minimize, outright ignore and obfuscate the magnitude of the Benghazi catastrophe and why a renowned and formerly reputable news organization could allow the President and his administration to stonewall, delay, cover-up and now, allegedly, lie about what transpired there that night.

The murder of an ambassador is the diplomatic equivalent of the sinking of a naval vessel…yet nothing substantial has come from your reporting…the confusion and chaos that ensued there that night and the horrible, ham-handed way the administration dealt, and is dealing, with this catastrophe, is remarkable on its face for the sheer PR blunder that it is… yet nothing substantial has come from your reporting. Now emails, forced from military, diplomatic, and intelligence sources from within the security apparatus of the US, essentially whistle-blowers, come forward with detailed, scathing, and poignant information that begins to craft a very chilling narrative of either gross negligence or a darker expose’ on cover-up, lying, obfuscation, and dereliction of duty for several key administration officials… yet nothing substantial has come from your reporting. Now we come to find out that the former SEALs, contracted by the CIA, to conduct some weapons accountability in Libya, ignored orders from “higher” (that has not yet been determined by who), and that they ran to the sounds of guns, in harms way, in the hope of rescuing and protecting fellow Americans, and were killed doing so when no back up was sent… yet nothing substantial has come from your reporting. We now learn there are classified drone surveillance videos capturing the entire event as it unfolded over 7 hours, with Americans dying, and US sovereign territory being over run by terrorists… yet nothing substantial has come from your reporting. Finally, we discover, at a minimum, confusion amidst the National Command Authority that on whether to execute mission orders to In-Extremis teams in the Mediterranean area of operations, and that those orders were rebuffed by “higher” authority when the commander for Africa Command, Gen Ham, and his naval component, Admiral for 5th Fleet, were summarily “removed “ early change of command and an abrupt dismissal in the case of the admiral shortly after the Benghazi catastrophe… yet nothing substantial has come from your reporting.

Why?

When Valarie Plame, the CIA employee who was “out-ed” from alleged exposure from political operatives, and the exhausted need for “hard-hitting, aggressive, and necessary reporting” in the pursuit of “yellow cake” evidence and “unpeeling the onion” of deceit regarding alleged actions by the previous administration were pursued, NBC was racing for the lead story, following every lead, opening nightly news broadcasts with “scandal” and “betrayal” innuendo and outright accusations…yet no one died as a result of that event…and the immediate ramifications were not the ignoring of Americans in harms way, pleading for back up that we now KNOW was denied by someone within the upper echelons of the National Command Authority. The hypocrisy would be comical if it were not so tragic…and sinister.  

Watergate was a stain on the presidency, and on the country, ending in disgrace for president Nixon. Editorial boards, and journalists around the country could stand a little taller, and feel a bit more proud that we caught a criminal in the Whitehouse, and he was dismissed as such. Many people thought the press was disrespectful to the President, often interrupting him, chasing him with shouted questions, and inappropriate outbursts… yet no one died as a result of Watergate…and now you are silent, missing in action, ignoring the plain and most obvious pieces of evidence…for what…because you have lost your journalistic integrity. More important than your measly career implications bucking up against the Main Stream thought of Obama-mania, you are now in violation of your constitutional duty…are you in violation because you are ignorant, or because you are willfully supporting the cover-up and the mis-match of open source information coming from the Administration?

I, and millions of other Americans can only surmise that it must be the latter…because you have been informed, the information other leading organizations, mainly Fox News, is uncovering, the facts about the catastrophe, are documented and well sourced…so it must be willing support to allow this administration to continue to obfuscate, cover-up, even lie to the American People over the deaths and ineptitude and dereliction of the nation’s top officials; namely, President Obama, SecState Clinton, SecDef Panetta, DCI Petraeus, and NCA Donnelly. 

You are now purposely and knowingly advancing a ruse and lie against the American People everyday you do not pursue this with the same vigor and relentless investigating prowess you demonstrated with Plame and Watergate for what can only be described and understood as crass political cover for sitting Officials that have collectively refused to come clean on the events of 11 September 2012.

Because of your ineptitude or unwillingness to pursue this, you now have blood on your hands, and have scars on your once reputable profession. 

SHAME ON YOU!!!

The global collective “gulp” heard around the world….America’s Enemies saw the worst case scenario for them last night…reminiscent of Reagan…

As the punditry and TV class virtually unanimously agreed former governor Mitt Romney dominated in all categories in yesterday’s debate against President Obama, no doubt the vast majority of Mr. Obama’s media sycophants, political enablers, and entertainment elite are feeling a bit dejected, discouraged, and disillusioned. Romney’s commanding and masterful bout against the “Great Orator” on the facts, merits, and in real time showed staunch partisans of the president and undecideds alike that Mitt Romney is a tough, savvy, and a skilled executive with superb qualities underscoring both his exemplary leadership style, and his crafted and honed management skills. Is there any politician in the Democratic Party in the US that would have fared much better against Mitt Romney last night? Romney was bold, confident, adroit, determined, and focused….everything America’s enemies fear as well….

Now place Mr. Romney at the epicenter of any number of international crisis as President and how America’s equities, concerns, and vital interests would be addressed by him…if you are Russia, you are now aware Missile Defense, and potential Russian hegemonic aspirations, are warranting some serious re-construction, and you are taking a moment of pause.…If you are Iran, you can only imagine what the Mullahs and Ahmedinejad are reconsidering vis-à-vis nuclear weapons development…if you are Syria, you are contemplating what a real international effort to thwart mass murder might look like with a US-Led NATO Coalition with Turkey in the operational mix…If you are any number of recent Arab Spring participants who have spit at the US posture in the Middle East, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and others…you are probably wondering if you can continue your direct or implied support of Muslim Brotherhood and other anti-US forces when President Romney takes the reins, and how you will live your lavish lifestyle with no US funding available…If you are North Korea, how can you count on the US not responding or supporting either South Korea and Japan on the international stage as you make dangerous mischief at the cost of your own regime…and if you are China, you realized there would be a leader, manger, business expert and now Commander-In Chief that will no longer allow you to run roughshod over the American Economy, or allow an unfettered build up of your power-projecting blue water navy to threaten American interests and those of her allies…and if you are the UN, you no longer will have the ability to hide behind your muddled moral relevancy and tacitly support of thuggish dictators, anti-Semitic terror supporters, and corrupt bureaucrats straddling between their latent and overt disdain for the US and their desire to enjoy the stability, comfort and safety of being in the US and reaping from its Exceptionalism…

And this was just the domestic economic debate venue…

If you are an enemy of the US, let alone a supporter of the current Administration (not implying they are one and the same…) given recent and colossal international blunders from Libya to Egypt, the moral blemish that is the ongoing murder in Syria, or even Drug Cartels who currently enjoy a rather “laizzez faire” atmosphere compared to the havoc wrought on both Mexican and US societies by way of the drug, weapons, and vast human toll expended over the last several years, you cannot do anything but take a serious “gulp” and reflect on how your nefarious corner of the international stage will be severely and immediately affected when President Romney arrives on the scene.

How an American Administration either bungled or purposefully misinformed the American People on a colossal intelligence and security failure, and how the media is now blatantly complicit.

Which is more scandalous; the well orchestrated, timely, and effective terror attack on a US Diplomatic mission in Libya and the deaths of four American officials, including the Ambassador? Or was the Administration’s ineptitude, at best, or deliberate obfuscation and mis-information about said attack, leading to a growing and swelling voice of “cover-up” from both congressional and professional diplomats and intelligence officials more scandalous?

Hum…?

Though both are equally as disheartening, disparaging, and detrimental to overall US strategy and credibility in the region, and around the world, the immediate threat as a result of the aftermath of the Libya cover-up scandal is the pervasive and seemingly aligned “mute” button from the major America Press. With the exception of the Fox News Network, and some courageous and dogged conservative blog sites and avant-garde news outlets, this incredible, terrible, and disgraceful episode in US geo-strategic affairs is virtually non-existent in other major news outlets. What little (and I mean very little) coverage there has been, it is more cheeky banter in the guise of “much-to-do-about nothing” and it is crafted and spun as a feign attempt by conservative forces to “stir” the pot and try to create bad press and indictments on the Obama Administrations utter fail in its approach to the Middle East, and Foreign Affairs in general. Even Vice President Biden stated the President would be tested…on Libya, and the uprisings in North Africa….he has surely been tested, and he has been found wanting.

As congressional committees unpeel the rotten onion that is the terror incident in Benghazi, we are made aware of discoveries of what precisely was known, and who precisely knew it, and what, if any actions were taken or not taken to have potentially prevented this abominable and epic collapse in US international standing, prestige, and perceived power. The longer lasting damage ,loss of credibility, and more immediate threat to our Republic is to the “fourth branch”…our once, and respected, albeit frustrating, press, is no longer remotely adhering to their charter…report newsworthy events and issues that can and do affect Americans being perpetrated by an unchecked government.

President Obama said he was going to fundamentally change America…and the press took him at his word, and appear to be embracing that very notion.

This is truly ominous.

I have many friends, colleagues and acquaintances that are former military, federal or intelligence professionals…all…ALL…find this most disturbing…even my more sympathetic contacts to the Administration. Why? Because, without trust, without the direct, tacit, or implied understanding that your government and its leaders have your back in hostile, arduous, and dangerous environments, such as Libya, or the Green on Blue deaths in Afghanistan, this whole experiment or American diplomacy, and security affairs and the notion that we are in fact the good guys, goes right out the fricken window!

Of all the “change” we have endured under the three short years from this Administration, health care, infringing on religious expression, Occupy, Fast and Furious, Stimulus…more Stimulus, astronomical debt levels, more spending, sequestration, lay-offs of contractors…the Administration offering to pay for legal bills for companies encouraged to act illegally, all in the name of political and election year expediency, this single notion, a maligned, partial, and complicit press is the most threatening to many. The press controls the window to the issues, actions, and atmosphere to our society…he who controls that message outright, controls that society…it is truly Orwellian.

We must vote this cabal out in November…or perhaps be faced with an economy, a press, and a weaken military with which we cannot change back…

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html#

            Apparently, a UK-based publication, the Independent Newspaper, is reporting "high level" US diplomatic sources have disclosed the US State Department had information regarding the potential for violent and disruptive actions by factions within Libya to be directed toward US diplomatic facilities in Benghazi on or around the 11 September anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.  

            When White House Senior Spokesman, Jay Carney was confronted by the White House Press Corps regarding the alleged information within the Independent article, his response was one that was both measured and cautious. 

(Paraphrasing)

Reporter: "Did the administration or the State Department receive intelligence regarding the attacks on the diplomatic personnel in Benghazi?"

Carney: "We received no actionable intelligence." 

Reporter: "Did you receive any information regarding the potential attacks?" 

Carney: "Again, we received no information which would allow us to act....no actionable intelligence."

Translation: We had no stimulus for which to respond.

            Unlike reptiles, or insects, humans have an additional step in the decision making process that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.; discernment.  The lessor creatures can only operate on what would be classified as "actionable intelligence." ...i.e., Stimulus leads to response; hungry-eat, aroused-pursue, threatened-defend, frightened-flee, etc..

            Many leaders in senior decision-making positions in the military, government, large corporations, or professional sports franchises are continuously bombarded with opportunities to "decide." Some inherently understand that any decision is based on the optimum balance between "judgment" and "initiative." Often, decisions that come rapidly or in times of unexpected extremis require rote, repetitive, and "actionable" responses, much like one would find in high-performance military aviation operations (engine out, flight control malfunction, avionic or weapons malfunctions, etc..). The need for proper and applicable "initiative" is met when one practices and is examined repeatedly and in arduous and realistic conditions, so when a similar incident actually transpires, the recipient is prepared to react effectively, timely, and accurately.   

            Other decisions can rely heavily on judgment, with very little requirement for immediate initiative. These are often much more academically, administratively, and procedurally oriented, and can be crafted, molded, tested, and examined over longer periods of time. i.e. what university to attend, buying a house, planning where to vacation, or what approach to take for retirement, developing String Theory. Very little negative effects will ensue if a "quick" decision is derived hastily, then changed...or changed again.  Where as in the high-performance military aircraft example, a wrong decision can, and often, is a disastrous or fatal one.

            Now we come to an arena where the balance between initiative, and judgment is crucial; International Security Affairs. This balance is best struck when the supporting elements are equally as balanced, i.e. between experience-education, intuition-wisdom, personal understanding-anecdotal evidence, confidence-humility, ability to listen-desire to explain, one's perception of one's self-what others see, tolerance-conviction, faith-proof, love-indifference...and so on. Often, crisis management/response requires a great deal of understanding of a number of different disciplines and experiences spanning the functional, cultural, historical, social, political, military, linguistic, and even religious.  

            I spent many years working on high-level staffs, in the military, diplomatic, and intelligence arenas. Not to be immodest, I was afforded a front row seat as senior military, political, diplomatic, and foreign leaders were confronted or provided the opportunity to "decide" something that could have (in some cases did have) significant ramifications on fairly large regional or global scales. I remember one particular incident with a very high-ranking military official who was becoming increasingly agitated as an event was unfolding. As his frustration and agitated state became more apparent, he finally blurted out, "Dammit, I need more intel to make this decision.... where is my actionable intel for this?" This statement was followed by a look toward the senior intelligence officer in the room (also a fairly high ranking military officer themselves) that could have cut through pig iron. He calmly, and without malice responded to the incensed 4-star and said, " Sir, I am charged with providing you the most accurate, most timely, and most relevant information we can attain.... I’ve done that. What you do with that information and how you proceed is why you are sitting where you are, and we are sitting where we are....." 

            Needless to say, you could have heard a pin drop. Though it was only a few seconds, it felt like an eternity, and in that eternity, not one sentient being in that room missed the exact notion the intel chief was conveying.... this is why you get paid the big bucks...this is why you have all the amenities, assistants, bloated staffs, luxury jets, state-of-the-art operations centers, satellite communications, "red-phones", and all the other "support" tools you need...because in the end, it is YOU who will be required, accountable, and responsible for the decision, AND the ramifications that will prevail. 

            That brings us to Secretary of State Clinton, and to a large degree, the Obama Administration in the latest Benghazi attacks and subsequent murders of US Diplomatic personnel, including the Ambassador. No one disputes Secretary Clinton, nor President Obama for that matter, aren't bright, intelligent people. However, if that were the only criteria for one being in a national security leadership position, then all our flag officers in any war we have ever fought will have come from the hollowed towers of academia and bland research institutes. If one has a tough disposition, or is recognized for grit and endurance for decision-making, then our national leaders would come from the cadre of Mixed Martial Artists. Nor does anyone dispute Ms. Clinton or President Obama’s respective political savvy, interpersonal craftiness, or their alluring public personas. However, if that was a sole or driving indicator of leadership and accurate decision-making, then the casts of "Survivor" and "America's Got Talent" would be the types we would recruit/desire for senior leadership positions. Vice President Biden famously (perhaps infamously) predicted the untested, inexperienced, “present” voting then-Senator Obama would surely be challenged as President. Despite what you may think of Joe Biden (actually, I see a remarkable resemblance to Frank Drebin from Police Squad movies…but I digress), he was accurate on that prognostication. Of course, what was implied there was that then-Senator Obama would rise to the occasion as Commander-in-Chief because he was just so talented, insightful, and of course, smart. Since the above article came out, we have now seen, and confirmed, the Benghazi attack was in fact a highly coordinated, premeditated, and deliberate terror attack against what is now discovered a highly vulnerable and high-risk consulate compound. We also now know definitively that President Obama had skipped more frequently than not his daily intelligence briefings, which presumably included indicators and warnings around or immediately following the massive and widespread disruptions and violence direct at American diplomatic and commercial facilities throughout the Middle East and other Islamic-dominated countries.

            In the myth of “actionable intelligence” most fixate on the much sought after key nugget buried within the intelligence that triggers the “action” aspect in which to affect desired outcomes. However, the “smartest President ever” apparently not only neglected the “actionable” part of the “actionable intelligence” he actually chose to neglect the “intelligence” part as well in the “actionable intelligence” when he made a concerted effort not to attend his own briefings.  If you do not listen to the intelligence briefings prepared for you, by scores, if not hundreds of intelligence professionals working thousands of hours at all hours of the day and night from all over the world, then you are one-hundred percent guaranteed to never catch the “actionable” piece of the actionable intelligence needed to act, and potentially save lives, and withstand the onslaught of Anti-American rage across the region. Evidently, our Commander-in-Chief, once confronted with what is developing as one of the single greatest national security failures within the last two decades, began to peddle an internally crafted narrative to lead the American people to believe that his administration could not possibly have anticipated the reaction of the “Arab street” to the “vile” YouTube snippet no one had ever seen or heard of. It was snatched out of obscurity, and used as a rallying cry and excuse and premise to exert violent political displays and operational terror acts against US and other sympathizing Western entities and facilities.   The domestic political embarrassment for the president usurped the realities that this President, and his “grad school” level advisors simply were not, and are equipped with the necessary balance, experience, acumen, training, or back-bench to deal with such highly concerning and frankly dangerous events unfolding all over the world for American national Security. Not only was the President never prepared for this inevitability, nor was he willing to listen to the non-political professionals within his own intelligence community, nor is he surrounded within his most intimate circle of advisors with people anymore familiar or experienced in security affairs than he is (less Biden…but Frank Drebin was a cop for 30 years as well….), he could not even bring himself or his administration spokespersons to take rudimentary steps to mitigate the cascading crisis and approach the problem to American values, reputation, and standing in the world with a traditional or anticipated American approach. He ends up giving more sympathy to the self-proclaimed “victims” of the schlocky and insignificant independent Internet trailer making disparaging comments and depictions of Mohammed than he does to the American ideal and centuries-long understanding and hard fought American core value of free-speech.

            “Actionable Intelligence” is rarely actionable in and of itself. It needs a competent leader and steady, wise, and engaged hand on the tiller to make it actionable.  That would-be competent, steady, wise and engaged leader becomes that way in an OJT (on-the-job) situation (Obama as Commander-in-Chief is OJT) when he actually attends the briefings, and stops blaming the very nation he has sworn to defend and lead.  I am not questioning Mr. Obama’s loyalty. I am questioning his competence, and ability to rise to the occasion in very “interesting times.”. He can no longer ride on the coattails of his military; contrary to Alexrod-esque driven MSM propaganda, “killing Bin Laden” is not in and of itself a “national security strategy.” 

            As Iran, China, North Korea, Russia, Hezbollah, become increasingly more bold and potentially dangerous, we need to have a leader that understands the failure and myth of “actionable intelligence” and has the managerial skills to “work the problem” and surround himself with those that possess the optimal balance in the security arena. Finally, he needs to be competent, experienced, and engaged enough to know when to actually attend the briefings and meetings to make him as smart and informed as he can be to deal as best he can with emerging crises. Clearly, Mr. Obama has failed that test. We can’t afford anymore OJT for him on our national safety and security behalf. 

Russian Brutish Narrow-Mindedness Could Come Back to Haunt It

Also: Updated- Another Top Syrian Offical Defects

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=8747709

From AP-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, a top military commander and close friend of Syrian President Bashar Assad confirmed his defection from the regime.

Brig. Gen. Manaf Tlass, son of a former defense minister, said in a video broadcast on Al-Arabiya TV that Syrians must work together to build a new country.

"I speak to you not as an official, but as a son of Syria, as a son of the Syrian Arab army that has rejected the criminal program if this corrupt regime," Tlass said, dressed in a light blue shirt with an open collar, his gray hair tussled.

"Our duty today as Syrians is to unify for one goal, and that is to make our country free and democratic," he said.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Washington Post’s David Ignatius provided a succinct analysis of what may be transpiring in Syria and how the demise may play out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-syria-approaches-the-tipping-point/2012/07/18/gJQAFoCvtW_story.html

He also captures the increasing refrain from Middle East and Security observers on the looming danger evident in Syria’s massive chemical weapons stockpile. There is no “do-they, don’t they” Pre-Iraq-esque  bickering with regards to the universally accepted fact of Syria’s possession, delivery capability, and past use of some of the planet’s most lethal concoctions of what can only be described as “human-pesticide.” This includes enormous amounts of mustard gas, cyanide, sarin, and the most lethal and disconcerting possible agent, VX. Though it has not been confirmed, Syria has had a sophisticated chemical weapons program for decades and the feasibility to weaponize VX elements is not out of the realm of intent or capability for the current regime to consider. There have been wide spread reports they are actually moving some chemical weapons, and this has US observers a bit perplexed as to why. (i.e. to hide or secure, or for utilization) Additionally, there is reporting that they have developed some levels and aspects of biological weapons. 

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/13108/sec_id/13108

These include anthrax, plague, tularemia, botulism, smallpox, aflo-toxin, cholera, ricin and camelpox, and Syria has possibly used Russian help in installing anthrax in missile warheads. These bio-toxins, plus the potential for VX nerve agents constitutes an exponential shift in the criticality of what happens in Syria for regional and US security concerns. Any of these weaponized Bio-Chem agents, let alone all, illustrate a “doomsday” scenario for Syria, at a minimum, and potentially Jordan, Lebanon, and of course, Israel if released. The US considers the operational use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, such as Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear/Radiological, can warrant a "special" response in the form of a WMD. In the case of the US, it destroyed its chemical and bio stock piles decades ago....so that means a nuclear retaliation.

However, back to the immediate concerns, there are 3 possible scenarios that none of them give any security observers any "warm fuzzies." 

1. Will the Syrians use them at some point?

2. If the Assad regime collapses, what happens to the massive stockpiles?

a. Does the “opposition forces” leadership possess the requisite command and control to secure these stockpiles if they succeed in overthrowing Assad?

b. Are the “unsecure” stockpiles vulnerable to being captured by transnational terror elements?

3. In either case, what will be the response by the US, Israel, “NATO”, the UN, or some coalition of interested and proactive surrounding Arab states, or Iran, either unilaterally, or in some permutation of cooperation?

The irony has been the reluctance of Russia to “turn the leaf” on its staunch and unrelenting position of support for the increasingly threatened Assad regime. There are, on the surface, some aspects that one might be able to tether to Russia's contrarian and entrenched siding with the moribund Bathist state. Syria represents Russia's single claim to "global" presence abroad. The Russian-maintained naval facility at the Syrian port city of Tartus is the single last bastion of Soviet influence after the fall of the Wall outside of Russia's traditional sphere of influence. Its military significance in support of would-be Russian "expeditionary operations" is nominal. I can personally attest that in order for Russia to even deploy minimal operationally viable maritime assets abroad, they need to cannibalize several naval platforms just to deploy a few. Tartus is simply symbolic of Russia's gasps at former global influence. That isn't to say Russia can't default into its historical role as "spoiler" and cause serious mischief, to US or NATO deployed forces in the Mediterranean. However, as seen in recent news reports, Russia, along with fellow US-agitator, China, can cause enough tension and obstacles to international efforts in Syria through its veto at the UN. 

Another driver for continued Russian support to Syria as it appears to be whistling passed the graveyard is the multimillion dollar arms sales to the Assad regime. Many of the very Russian power-brokers that have the sway and influence to take another tac for Syria's future are also the same power-brokers that directly receive measurable cuts from the actual arms sales themselves, that land in Swiss, Cyprus, and Macao bank accounts. They truly couldn't care less what happens to Syria on the ground. For Putin, it is more the former, and a desire to enhance and bolster the perception of Russian hegemony and geo-strategic impact in the Middle East.  Regarding Tartus, given the Russians have been directly complicit in the prolonged deaths of hundreds if not thousands of opposition members, does anyone believe the opposition leadership would grant Russia continued presence in Tartus after they vetoed UN options for stability and peace on the ground?  I am one who personally believes "UN peace-keeping efforts" and 50 cents might get you a cup of coffee. However, if the UN is constantly thwarted by Russia, and China, to even attempt to intervene on the behalf of thousands of innocent Syrians in the name of humanitarian justice, then we certainly know what will be the outcome on the ground in Syria if nothing is done; more massacres, bloodshed, and instability, perhaps leading to the use, or loss, of lethal bio-chem weapons. 

And so do the Syrian opposition leaders.

This is where the Russians, for all their geo-strategic blustering, and feign attempts to appear worldly and diplomatic fail. If the bio-chem stores were to be compromised, and even small amounts of VX, sarin, anthrax, or cyanide were to be smuggled out of Syria,  do they believe for one moment the Chechens, or other Central Asian Jihadist elements wouldn't bid or barter to get in on a piece of that "human-pesticide?" Russia has had a real and clear struggle with Jihadist and separatist terror elements for decades. Only within the last ten years we can recall the Beslan school massacre, or the Moscow Theatre terror incident, along with severe bombings on the Moscow Metro all equaling hundreds of Russian deaths in gruesome and brutal ways. The loss of Syrian Bio-Chem agents could be a direct threat to Russian security interests both in Russia proper, or vast Russian populations in former Soviet States near the Middle East such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Ukraine, and many of the "Stan" states.  

 Yet, Russia will continue to wish to appear "relevant" and make ridiculous and historically poor foreign policy choices that will do nothing but slightly delay Assad's demise, and inflame both Syrian opposition leaders and Jihadist terror elements to potentially have possible WMD from the very toppled regime in which they supported so vigorously.

The Russian Foreign Ministry is characteristically now accusing the US of “arming” the Syrian Opposition.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/13/state-department-rejects-russia-accusation-arming-syrian-opposition/

Fox News is reporting the Russian government is now claiming the US is “arming” the Syrian opposition forces with military aid.

There’s a surprise.

This typical counteraccusation propaganda tactic is right out of the SVR/KGB disinformation handbook. Yes, the US does have, through numerous NGO (Non-Government al Organizations) streams in which education, humanitarian, and developmental resources and material are distributed throughout Syria; however this is all under the authorization and oversight of the Syrian government. In classic Russian blustering and ratcheting of escalating rhetoric, the Foreign Ministry is attempting to create a narrative of “balance” and “moral equivalency” in the desperate attempt to legitimize their (Russia’s) recent offensive military arms shipment in the form of ground attack helicopters, and to hang on to the lucrative arms funding stream that has been the totalitarian and brutal Syrian Bathist regime as exemplified by the Assad reign’s signature achievements; killing their own citizens by the thousands.

Again, with Putin back in the “Tsarist” saddle, he will manipulate, spin, perhaps even challenge openly, Mr. Obama and this administration in an attempt to strengthen his own image at home amidst increasing domestic opposition protesting, and his perception around the world. Additionally, the Russians are intensely aware that the US reputation and image around the globe is faltering. Remember, Russian strategic thinkers and planners see the relationship with the US as a “zero-sum gain;” If we are winning, then the US is losing”, and visa versa.

American perceived hesitation and indecision on Syria, and potential Russian reaction thereto is for the Russians a two-edged sword. One the one side, in the eyes of the domineering and macho-prone Putin, kicking a weak US President when he is down is just “fun.” Putin no doubt can pick at this low-hanging fruit early in his renewed presidency, and gain some political and diplomatic favor with the historically pro-Arab, anti-Israeli/US blocs, while adding to the image and perception of a weak and ineffectual US stance or response to Russian-backed, Syrian wholesale slaughter of its own people. The Russians are astutely aware that this is an election year, (President Obama reminded them himself with his now infamous “after the election” comment on missile defense) and that Mr. Obama is shrewd and self-serving enough (in their minds) to not tip over the proverbial diplomatic or military applecart regarding a US or US-Led coalition response in Syria. This leads to the other edge of the sword.

Mr. Putin knows that if he beats up this President too much, this only adds to the increasing momentum depicting Mr. Obama as incompetent or out of his depth geo-strategically. This will reinforce Mr. Romney’s chances for defeating the “skinny American kid” on the play ground Putin is currently enjoying kicking around. Romney, in the eyes of the Russians, and by his own position on Russia (which is becoming increasingly more wise and sagely with each action the Russians take) is not the “skinny kid,” and is in fact the quiet giant who the Russians know will not take Putin’s bullying sitting down. With Romney in office, the Russians have their hegemonic and potential military adventurism curtailed, and the Chinese will have their financial shenanigans challenged in the arena of currency manipulation and trade imbalances and tariff barriers.

Additionally, Putin walks a fine line with his traditional Russia-friendly anti-Israeli groups. This was traditionally held by many Arab strongman regimes, such as Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Algeria, Syria, and even Iran (Persian, but Muslim). If the Arab Spring counter-revolutionary spirit remains or even becomes sympathetic by the Arab street, and Russia is viewed as fostering and fueling the continued mass-murder of Arabs against Assad’s Thugtocracy, then the Russians have a PR nightmare that will not further ingratiate them with their own massive Muslim population and those in the Post-Soviet Central Asian Republics. These are the very targets and areas of influence Russia desperately wants to coddle in its hegemonic aspirations of former glory.

Nobody wants Romney to win…not, Russia, not China, not Iran, not socialist France, or Venezuela, or North Korea, or Cuba, or George Soros, David Axelrod or the US Press. The only ones that want to see Romney win are American citizens that have seen their net worth drop nearly 40% over the last three years, unemployment remain unprecedentedly high, gas prices spiking and volatile, Health Care rammed down their throats, social and cultural fringe issues dominating the Administration’s agenda as the economy sputters and wanes,  and millions who do not agree with the President and his enablers that the public sector, big government approach is in their best interests or that of our nation.

Romney and the American people are on the right side of history with all these issues; the upcoming election, the economy, dealing with Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, reducing our debt, and our government that gave us said debt, and renewing and reforming the US as the Founding Fathers intended.

Putin, and Axelrod, aren't!

The more we “hope” things will “change” regarding Russian foreign policy and geo-strategic intentions, the more they look awfully familiar.

http://www.wtop.com/289/2377364/US-Russia-sending-Syria-attack-helicopters

The Associated Press is reporting Russia will follow through with a “sizable” shipment of what is being reported on as “attack helicopters” to the Assad regime in Syria. I wrote an article, Increasing Awareness That Romney Not Far Off On Russia demonstrating Republican Presidential Nominee, Mitt Romney’s, insight and true understanding of what a threat Russia poses with Vladimir Putin regaining the control of the Russian power reins . (Putin 2.0). I also underscore Russia’s natural “spoiler” role when it comes to anything and everything “US” related on the world stage. I specifically comment that in the eyes of Russian foreign policy planners and national security strategists, if America appears to be “winning,” then Russia considers itself “losing”. I believe Romney is well aware of this.

However, the irresponsible, self-serving, and escalating move on the part of Russia vis-à-vis the attack helicopter shipment is part and parcel of a greater, and even more self-absorbed, agenda by our Russian “competitors.”

First, the Russians couldn’t care less what the helicopters might or might not be used for. Given there has been no definitive reporting as of yet whether the “attack helicopters" are in fact “attack” helicopters, this may be a routine scheduled shipment of a wider array of military hardware including helos. However, if they are in fact from the “attack” line of air assault platforms, such as the Mi-24 “Hind”, or the Mi-28 “Havoc”, or even one of the new 4^th generation Ka-50, “HoKum” variants, this spells certain tactical doom for the fledgling Syrian opposition forces, and would be classified as an official geo-regional-strategic “game changer.”  Right now, the Syrians are going house to house, and indirectly laying fire utilizing mortar and artillery pieces. Though intimidating and devastating when accurate, Syrain indirect fire is still not as precise, and does add to the perception of indiscriminate shelling or targeting. The Russian do some things very well….and attack helicopters are one of those things. These platforms have sophisticated targeting modules and heavy weapons for close-in support and attack of targets on the ground. They are also potentially equipped with sophisticated counter-measures and decoy/evasion devices for ground-to-air threats. This was a hard lesson learned by the Russians (Soviets) in the smoldering aircraft heaps during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in 1979. (The book and movie, Charlie Wilson’s War, aptly depicted just how deadly US surface-to-air missiles, “stingers” were to the Soviet war effort.) All this military sophistication brought on by the helicopters would increase the lethality, on “legitimate targets” or not, and avoid the ability to “counter-fire” with counter-battery radar or “line of sight” spotting. Bottom line: The “rebels” won’t stand a chance against these helicopters.

Secondly, even if the Russian leadership sees Assad’s regime as eventually going down, many within the military arms sales construct (Rosoboronexport) and high ranking military and defense officials will sell the arms anyways because they get direct and immediate payments from the sales to their private “off shore” Cyprus, Macau, and Swiss bank accounts. Often this is in the neighborhood of millions of dollars per “official.” The Russian arms industry is one of the most personally lucrative endeavors the powerbrokers have that create vast wealth very quickly.

Thirdly, the Russians are willing to flex their hegemonic muscles a little. They do not have the power-projection calculus they once had back in the Cold War days, but they still possess the illusion of “brinksmanship.” This is certainly evident in the Russian naval base in Tartus, Syria that has been equipped, man, maintained, and managed by Russian naval personnel since 1971.  They know President Obama and the present National Security team would not appear to threaten that vital Russian warm water port, let alone commit to an embargo or blockade of the port city. The Russians smell blood regarding how stretched thin US military assets are around the globe, how weary the US population is to the existing wars, and hesitant they would be to yet another open kinetic conflict in the Middle East. Though I don’t think the Russians are prepared, in the immortal words of Major Kong from Dr. Strangelove, “Go toe-to-toe in nuclear combat”, they are expertly prepared to toy with our resolve a bit, embarrass us if they can, and seek to bolster their own geo-strategic image in the midst of our hesitation and indecision.

Why wouldn’t they? What would this administration do to mitigate any of Russia’s desire or intent to meddle and make mischief?  They don’t see Russia as a threat….remember?