I gotta say this is a good waiver of the Army Regulations

Welcome to the officer corps Chaplain Stern!

Bearded rabbi sworn in as Army chaplain - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

SURFSIDE, Fla. — An Orthodox Jewish rabbi initially barred from serving as an Army chaplain because he refused to shave the beard required by his faith was sworn in to the service Friday.

First Lt. Menachem Stern of Brooklyn officially became an Army chaplain in a ceremony at The Shul Jewish Community Center in Surfside, Florida.

Stern is a member of the Chabad Lubavitch movement of Judaism, whose rabbis are prohibited from shaving their beards.

It’s the end of a two-year struggle for Stern, who feels being an Army Chaplain was what he’s meant to do. His oath of office was given by another Rabbi, retired Army Colonel and Jewish Chaplain Jacob Goldstein, head of the military outreach for the Aleph Institute, a Florida-based Orthodox Jewish organization.

“I am so happy to finally be a member of the armed forces of the United States,” Stern said to the media after the event. “From the time I knew what a chaplain was, I felt this was my calling to serve those in uniform as an emissary in this way.”

The rabbi saw an advertisement in late 2008 for military chaplains and attended a recruiter’s presentation. After consulting with his wife, he decided to apply in January 2009, making clear in his application he intended to keep his beard.

Stern and other Orthodox Jews don’t shave, believing a passage in the book of Leviticus — “Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard” — specifically outlaws it.

Initially accepted as a chaplain, Army later rescinded its offer, citing its prohibition on beards. A two-year legal battle ensued...

...a lawyer for the Aleph Institute, filed a federal lawsuit in Washington a year ago. Aleph has a large outreach program that includes the military....

...Stern made special note in his acceptance speech after being sworn in that he’s called to minister to the spiritual needs of all soldiers — as all chaplains are called to do.

“The Army is a diverse organization and I’m more than ready to minister to both Jew and non-Jew alike,” he said.

Stern pointed out that part of his faith and beliefs is that all human beings — not just Jews — are called by god to follow the Seven Noahchide Laws. It’s a code of imperatives that, according to the Jewish beliefs were given by God as a rules for the “children of Noah” to live by. And that means, Stern said, all of humankind.

About fifteen years ago I was at a conference at Ft McPherson and met one of five Sikhs in the Army, an intelligence specialist who had a beard. One of my many questions was how does he make it through a gas chamber and he would use oil on his beard to create a seal. He spent over a half hour in a chamber. For those of you who have not been exposed to CS that doesn't happen without a good seal on the mask. Where there is a will there is a way.

For God and country, thanks you for serving Rabbi!

Every time I see this I think of Mel Brooks from History of the World:
"The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen... [drops one of the tablets] Oy! Ten! Ten commandments for all to obey!"

You know, you can believe this from a woman like this

Can you forward me some drugs?  Please!

Woman caught making meth inside S. Tulsa Walmart

Tulsa police arrest a woman for mixing chemicals to make meth inside a south Tulsa Walmart on Thursday.

Elizabeth Alisha Greta Halfmoon, 45, also known to go by Alisha Halfmoon, was arrested for endeavoring to manufacture meth at the 81st and Lewis store.

Police say surveillance video shows Halfmoon had been in the store since noon. Six hours later security noticed she was acting suspicious, so they called Tulsa police.

Responding officers say she claimed she was "too broke to buy the chemicals."

“She didn’t have the money to make the purchases of the chemicals that were needed so she was taking what was needed in the bottle,” says Officer David Shelby.,,,

...”When I saw her she had just finished mixing sulfuric acid with starter fluid in a bottle,” says Officer Shelby.

They immediately got her, and the ingredients, out of the store before any of the shoppers got hurt...

...“When firefighters were on the scene she made statements to them that is what she was doing, she was attempting to obtain these chemicals and was in the process of trying to manufacture meth. However, she said she was not very good at it,” says Shelby.

A responding officer didn’t know the bottle was active. As he was discarding the bottle the chemicals burned through the bottle and through his gloves.

He was treated for chemical burns on his hands and is okay.

Police say they arrested Halfmoon just last month in a smurf sting. Smurfs are known among police as meth cooks or recruits who purchase pseudoephedrine to make meth. The medication is often found in cold and allergy medicines and is the main ingredient needed to make meth.

Jail records show she was booked on November 6 and released from jail on those charges on December 6.

Records show she received a deferred sentence and bonded out on $7,500.

In this case her bond has been set at $100,000 and her arraignment is set for December 16th.

In October, Glenn Reese was arrested at that same Walmart with a backpack containing what police called an active meth lab. Drainage ditches and tunnels in that area have been a common place for meth making and using, according to Tulsa police.

And I thought the homeless in Starbucks were a problem! Damned.

Hoses save the guns

I love this! Two responding officers get surrounded by dozens of turds, excuse me, oppressed citizens who assault an officer. A fire engine comes to assist them and uses the best weapon they got....the hose itself!

Here is the video.

Cops have to be rescued by firefighters -

Cops who found themselves on the losing end of a fight with a mob of armed thugs in front of a Staten Island home were rescued yesterday — by firefighters shooting a water cannon.

“The crowd start[ed] to jump and start beating up on the cops,’’ one stunned Fire Department source told The Post.

That’s when a firetruck from Engine Co. 158 down the street from the Mariners Harbor home arrived, the source said.

Then one firefighter “got up on the deck gun, and he aimed at people’s legs and just nailed them with water and drove them back,’’ the source said.

DOUSING A MELEE: Firefighters from Engine Co. 158 on Staten Island scatter angry teens who had begun fighting with cops outside a student’s home in Mariners Harbor.

The officers did have their hands full!

“The cops were very appreciative.”

Three cops suffered minor injuries in the melee on Harbor Road at about 3:30 p.m.

It began apparently after a 15-year-old girl who lives in the home refused to take sides in an earlier fight at Port Richmond HS — and angry classmates and their gangster pals swarmed her family’s home, threatening her.

“I was scared. I thought, OK, oh, my God, what am I going to do?’’ the terrified teen told The Post last night. “They had bats, they had the kind of bars you lock car steering wheels with, running up the block.”

The situation took an even more serious turn when one thug in the crowd of about 40 flashed a firearm, she said.

“My mom was screaming, ‘He’s got a gun! He’s got a gun!’ ” said the girl. “One of them was sticking their tongue out, and they had a blade on it.’’

The girl, who asked that her name not be revealed, said she suffers from a hole in her heart — and that the creeps even taunted her about that.

“They were saying, ‘You’ve got a heart condition — I’m going to hit you in the chest!’ ” she said.

The girl’s older brother, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said “there was a scuffle, and then a cop threw one of the guys on the ground because the guy shoved him, and it all went downhill from there.

“There were about 15 to 20 guys around the cop. So a firefighter got on top of the truck, turned on the pump, and was just hosing them down to get them off the driveway.’’...

...Nine people were taken into custody, police said. Charges against them were pending.

Now this is great. The usual suspects are complaining this looks like something from the 1960s when Civil Rights protesters were hit by the hoses. Kinda shows you how worthless they are now. In case you didn't realize it morons those people were trying to get their their right to vote, not a right to assault a girl who didn't want to be part of a gang fight or assaulting cops. But NY does have a great Police Commissioner

It was a warm-hearted thank you for a cold-water blast.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly yesterday sent cold cuts, side salads and beverages to the Staten Island firefighters who blasted a water cannon at a violent mob attacking two cops, The Post has learned.

“They were stand-up guys,” a police source said of the firefighters from ­Engine Co. 158 who came to the officers’ rescue Tuesday afternoon in Mariners Harbor.

To NYFD...thanks. The Blue knows we can always count on the Red...and you can always count on us.

Officer Down

Sergeant David Enzbrenner
Atchison Kansas Police Department
End of Watch: Friday, December 9, 2011
Tour: 24 years

Sergeant David Enzbrenner was shot and killed while assisting a code enforcement officer serve a nuisance order at a home near the intersection of 12th Street and Division Street shortly after 4:00 pm.

A relative of the home's residents suddenly approached and opened fire without warning, killing Sergeant Enzbrenner. The man then committed suicide.

Sergeant Enzbrenner had served with the Atchison Police Department for 24 years.

Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh.

Harley is thinking outside the saddle bag

I love my Road King....but this is interesting I gotta say!

Around Town

Around the State

Harley-Davidson's 2012 Switchback is a convertible cruiser

New for 2012, the Switchback is Harley-Davidson's version of a reversible jacket. It's a cruiser that can be ridden to the Rock Store for a burger or across the country to Daytona.

"We were hearing from a lot of women and aging riders: 'I love to tour, but I don't want an 800-pound motorcycle,'" said Jennifer Hoyer, media relations manager for Harley-Davidson in Milwaukee.

Harley's answer: A 718-pound addition to the Dyna family that can be packed like a mule or prettied up for town with an easy-to-detach windshield and saddlebags. Both accessories can be removed in 45 seconds by riders who have never handled a wrench. No tools are required.

Starting at $15,999, the Switchback is powered with the same Twin-Cam 103-cubic-inch engine that Harley is using on all its Softails and Touring bikes and most Dynas. Tuned for low-end torque that makes it easier to haul this hog from a dead stop, the 103 is air-cooled, fuel injected and relatively fuel efficient. Harley clams it gets 42 miles per gallon.

Although Harley has yet to step up to a catalytic converter, it embraces more technological advancements with each model year. The Switchback comes with a six-speed cruise drive transmission, anti-lock brakes and an Engine Idle Temperature Management Strategy system that cuts off fuel to the rearmost cylinder when the bike is idling, to reduce heat and prevent the rider and passenger from feeling like rotisserie chicken. The Switchback also employs a cartridge-style front left fork and emulsion shocks to soften the ride on long hauls.

Designed for riders that are more Jax Teller than Clay Morrow, the Switchback's retro style belies its modern behemoth engine and other 2012 amenities. Its cast-aluminum wheels are skirted with fenders, its rear shocks disguised as cigars, its handlebars stretched into mini ape hangers. Showcased in a modest frame, the 103's cylinders and heads are powder coated black with polished rocker covers.

Hey, cool! Something for when I'm too old and weak for the Road King or Ultra Classic, but too young and strong for the Trike! :<)

Officer Down

Deputy Sheriff Rick Rhyne
Moore County North Carolina Sheriff's Office
End of Watch: Thursday, December 8, 2011
Age: 58
Tour: 37 years

Deputy Sheriff Rick Rhyne was shot and killed after responding to investigate reports of trespassing at a home on Morrison Bridge Road.



While questioning two brothers he learned that one of them had a warrant for outstanding child support. As he attempted to place the man under arrest the man fatally shot him with a handgun. The suspect then committed suicide.

Deputy Rhyne had served with the Moore County Sheriff's Office for four years and had a total of 37 years in law enforcement. He had previously served with the Pinehurst Police Department and as police chief of the Foxfire Police Department. He is survived by his wife, son, and two grandchildren.

Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh. 

Officer Down

Police Officer I Deriek W. Crouse
Virginia Tech Police Department
End of Watch: Thursday, December 8, 2011
Age: 39
Tour: 4 years

Officer Deriek Crouse was shot and killed while making a traffic stop in the parking lot of the university's Cassell Coliseum, near McComas Hall, at approximately 12:15 pm.

At some point during the stop, a suspect unrelated to the traffic stop approached his unmarked car and shot him once in the head as he sat in his vehicle.

The suspect was located in the university's I-Lot approximately 45 minutes later and committed suicide as officers attempted to contact him.



Officer Crouse was a U.S. Army veteran and had served with the Virginia Tech Police Department for four years. He had previously served with the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office and New River Valley Regional Jail. He is survived by his wife, five children, mother, and brother.

Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh.

Don't challenge Mother Nature

She is usually up to the tasks.

Scotland has been hampered by 165 miles an hour winds recently with a spate of bad weather. This is a fascinating report on the power of nature. Now I really love what it shows at 1:00 and 1:15:



At 1:00, the Occupy Glasgow movement has been pretty much unoccupied.

At 1:15 you see what Mother Nature thinks of wind power.

Hopefully Scotland gets through this and gets back to what they are needed for...whiskey!

And let this be a lesson to any fool who says man can control nature!

Security Weekly: The Covert Intelligence War Against Iran, December 8, 2011

By Scott Stewart

There has been a lot of talk in the press lately about a “cold war” being waged by the United States, Israel and other U.S. allies against Iran. Such a struggle is certainly taking place, but in order to place recent developments in perspective, it is important to recognize that the covert intelligence war against Iran (and the Iranian response to this war) is clearly not a new phenomenon.

Indeed, STRATFOR has been chronicling this struggle since early 2007. Our coverage has included analyses of events such as the defection to the West of Iranian officials with knowledge of Tehran’s nuclear program; the Iranian seizure of British servicemen in the Shatt al Arab Waterway; the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists; the use of the Stuxnet worm to cripple Iranian uranium enrichment efforts; and Iranian efforts to arm its proxies and use them as a threat to counteract Western pressure. These proxies are most visible in Iraq and Lebanon, but they also exist in Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.

While the covert intelligence war has been under way for many years, the tempo of events that can readily be identified as part of it has been increasing over the past few months. It is important to note that many of these events are the result of hidden processes begun months or even years previously, so while visible events may indeed be increasing, the efforts responsible for many of them began to increase much earlier. What the activities of recent months do tell us is that the covert war between Iran and its enemies will not be diminishing anytime soon. If anything, with the current withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Iranian nuclear efforts continuing, we likely will see the results of additional covert operations — and evidence of the clandestine activity required to support those operations.

Ramping Up

All eyes were on this covert intelligence war after The New York Times published an article Jan. 15 reporting that the United States and Israel worked together to create and launch Stuxnet against the Iranian nuclear program. The visible events related to the intelligence war maintained a relatively steady pace until Oct. 11, when the U.S. Department of Justice announced that two men had been charged in New York with taking part in a plot by the Iranian Quds Force to kill Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, on U.S. soil.

In early November, a new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report was issued detailing Iranian efforts toward a nuclear weapons program. While this report did not contain any major revelations, it did contain new specifics and was more explicit than previous IAEA reports in its conclusion that Iran was actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The IAEA report resulted in an Israeli-led diplomatic and public relations campaign urging more effective action against Iran, ranging from more stringent sanctions to military operations.

Then, in the early afternoon of Nov. 12, explosions occurred at an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) ballistic missile base near Tehran, killing 17 people, including a high-ranking IRGC commander who was a critical figure in Iran’s ballistic missile program. Iran has insisted the blast was accidental, but speculation has since spread that the explosion could have been part of a sabotage operation carried out by Israeli intelligence. Israeli intelligence officials also have undertaken not-so-subtle efforts to ensure that outside observers believe they were responsible for the blasts.

Later on Nov. 12, the Bahraini government went public with the discovery of an alleged plot involving at least five Bahrainis traveling through Syria and Qatar to carry out attacks against government and diplomatic targets in Bahrain. Iran vehemently denied it was involved and portrayed the plot as a fabrication, just as it responded to the alleged plot against the Saudi ambassador.

The next day, the Iranian press reported that Ahmad Rezai, the son of Mohsen Rezai — who is the secretary of Iran’s Expediency Council, a former IRGC commander and a presidential contender — was found dead at a hotel in Dubai. The deputy head of the Expediency Council told the Iranian press that the son’s death was suspicious and caused by electric shocks, while other reports portrayed the death as a suicide.

On Nov. 20, the Los Angeles Times reported that U.S. intelligence officials confirmed the CIA had suspended its operations in Lebanon following the arrest of several of its sources due to sloppy tradecraft on the part of CIA case officers assigned to Beirut. Following this report, the Iranian government announced that it had arrested 12 CIA sources due to tradecraft mistakes. We have been unable to determine if the reports regarding Lebanon are true, merely CIA disinformation or a little of both. Certainly, the CIA would like the Iranians to believe it is no longer active in Lebanon. Even if these reports are CIA spin, they are quite interesting in light of the Oct. 11 announcement of the thwarted assassination plot in the United States and the Nov. 12 announcement of the arrests in Bahrain.

On Nov. 21, the United States and the United Kingdom launched a new wave of sanctions against Iran based on the aforementioned IAEA report. The new sanctions were designed to impact Iran’s banking and energy sector. In fact, the United Kingdom took the unprecedented step of totally cutting off Iran’s Central Bank from the British financial sector. The Canadian government undertook similar action against the Central Bank of Iran.

On Nov. 28, there were unconfirmed press reports of an explosion in Esfahan, one of Iran’s largest cities. These reports were later echoed by a STRATFOR source in Israel, and U.S. sources have advised that explosions did occur in Esfahan and that they caused a significant amount of damage. Esfahan is home to numerous military and research and development facilities, including some relevant to Iran’s nuclear efforts. We are unsure which facilities at Esfahan were damaged by the blasts and are trying to identify them.

Elsewhere on Nov. 28, Iran’s Guardians Council, a clerical organization that provides oversight of legislation passed by Iran’s parliament, approved a bill to expel the British ambassador and downgrade diplomatic relations between the two countries. The next day, Iranian protesters stormed the British Embassy in Tehran, along with the British Embassy’s residential compound in the city. The angry — and well-orchestrated — mob was protesting the sanctions announced Nov. 21. Iranian authorities did not stop the mob from storming either facility.

On Dec. 1, the European Union approved new sanctions against some 180 Iranian individuals and companies over Iran’s support of terrorism and its continued nuclear weapons program. The European Union did not approve a French proposal to impose a full embargo on Iranian oil.

In the early hours of Dec. 4, a small improvised explosive device detonated under a van parked near the British Embassy building in Manama, Bahrain. The device, which was not very powerful, caused little structural damage to the vehicle and none to the building itself.

The next day, an unnamed U.S. official confirmed Dec. 4 reports from several Iranian news outlets that Iran had recovered an RQ-170 “Sentinel” unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in Iranian territory. The Iranian reports claimed that Iranian forces were responsible for bringing down the Sentinel — some even said the Iranians were able to hack into the UAV’s command link. U.S. officials have denied such reports, and it is highly unlikely that Iran was able to take control of a UAV and recover it intact.

Outlook

The United States is currently in the process of completing the withdrawal of its combat forces from Iraq. With the destruction of the Iraqi military in 2003, the U.S. military became the only force able to counter Iranian conventional military strength in the Persian Gulf region. Because of this, the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will create a power vacuum that the Iranians are eager to exploit. The potential for Iran to control a sphere of influence from western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean is a prospect that not only frightens regional players such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey but also raises serious concerns in the United States.

As we have noted before, we don’t believe that a military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities alone is the answer to the regional threat posed by Iran. Iran’s power comes from its ability to employ its conventional forces and not nuclear weapons. Therefore, strikes against its nuclear weapons program would not impact Iran’s conventional forces or its ability to interfere with the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz by using its conventional forces asymmetrically against U.S. naval power and commercial shipping. Indeed, any attack on Iran would have to be far broader than just a one-off attack like the June 1981 Israeli strike at Osirak, Iraq, that crippled Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program.

Because of this difficulty, we have seen the Israelis, Americans and their allies attacking Iran through other means. First of all, they are seeking to curb Iran’s sphere of influence by working to overthrow the Syrian regime, limit Syria’s influence in Iraq and control Hezbollah in Lebanon. They are also seeking to attack Iran’s nuclear program by coercing officials to defect, assassinating scientists and deploying cyberwarfare weapons such as the Stuxnet worm.

It is also necessary to recognize that covert action does not occur in a vacuum. Each covert activity requires a tremendous amount of clandestine intelligence-gathering in order to plan and execute it. With so much covert action happening, the clandestine activity undertaken by all sides to support it is obviously tremendous. But as the frequency of this activity increases, so can sloppy tradecraft.

Finally, as we examine this campaign it is remarkable to note that not only are Iran’s enemies using covert methods to stage attacks on Iran’s nuclear program and military capabilities, they are also developing new and previously unknown methods to do so. And they have shown a willingness to allow these new covert attack capabilities to be unveiled by using them — which could render them useless for future attacks. This willingness to use, rather than safeguard, revolutionary new capabilities strongly underscores the importance of this covert campaign to Iran’s adversaries. It also indicates that we will likely see other new forms of covert warfare emerge in the coming months, along with revolutionary new tactical applications of older forms.

The Covert Intelligence War Against Iran is republished with permission of STRATFOR

Another great one passes

M*A*S*H was of the greatest TV series of all time without question. As I was growing up one of the daily rituals of the end of the night was watching M*A*S*H on Channel 4. When it went off the air in 1982 it was a national lights out. People I knew took their phones off the hook to not be disturbed. Alas one of them has gone.

Harry Morgan 1915-2011

'M*A*S*H' star Harry Morgan dies at 96

"M*A*S*H" star Harry Morgan died at his home in Los Angeles on Wednesday morning. The character actor was 96.

He was best known for playing Col. Sherman T. Potter on the long-running Army comedy.

In a 2004 interview with the The Television Academy Foundation's Archive of American Television, Morgan acknowledged the profound effect that the iconoclastic sitcom had on his career.

""He was firm," Morgan said. "He was a good officer and he had a good sense of humor. I think it's the best part I ever had. I loved playing Colonel Potter."

Although "M*A*S*H" made him a television icon, Morgan first came to attention for his role as Officer Bill Gannon, Joe Friday's partner on the revived version of "Dragnet," which aired on NBC from 1967-70.

Morgan's gruff demeanor made him an in-demand character actor for nearly five decades.

He appeared in supporting roles in over 100 films, many of them classics such as "The Ox-Bow Incident," "High Noon," and "Inherit the Wind."

His resonant voice and irascible verve made him a natural for parts as authority figures, and he was frequently called upon to play judges, lawmen and military officers.

In addition to "M*A*S*H" and "Dragnet," Morgan scored small screen success playing a henpecked husband on "Pete and Gladys" (1960-62), which originated out of a supporting part he played on "December Bride" (1954-59)...

...Morgan was married to Eileen Detchon for 45 years until her death in 1985.

He is survived by his wife, Barbara Bushman; three sons from his first marriage, Christopher, Charles and Paul; and eight grandchildren.

Morgan's son, Daniel died in 1989.

One of the things that made M*A*S*H great was as a character was replaced it was not with a carbon copy. When bumbling incompetent Major Burns left he was replaced with a superb but arrogant Boston native named Charles Emerson Winchester the Third (Don't call him Charlie or Chuck). When Lieutenant Colonel Henry Blake, an Army Reservist often walked over by Hawkeye or Trapper John went off the show he was replaced by an old Cavalryman who took nothing. When Henry was in charge rare was the episode that Hawkeye didn’t call his commander by his first name. Only in one episode did he do it to COL Potter (free government cheese to whoever can name the episode)!

RIP COL Potter/Bill Gannon. Another great one passes and you will be missed.

UPDATE:

A great video COMMON CENTS: Harry Morgan RIP: 1915 - 2011:

Geopolitical Weekly: Egypt and the Idealist-Realist Debate in U.S. Foreign Policy, December 6, 2011

By George Friedman

The first round of Egyptian parliamentary elections has taken place, and the winners were two Islamist parties. The Islamists themselves are split between more extreme and more moderate factions, but it is clear that the secularists who dominated the demonstrations and who were the focus of the Arab Spring narrative made a poor showing. Of the three broad power blocs in Egypt — the military, the Islamists and the secular democrats — the last proved the weakest.

It is far from clear what will happen in Egypt now. The military remains unified and powerful, and it is unclear how much actual power it is prepared to cede or whether it will be forced to cede it. What is clear is that the faction championed by Western governments and the media will now have to accept the Islamist agenda, back the military or fade into irrelevance.

One of the points I made during the height of the Arab Spring was that the West should be careful of what it wishes for — it might get it. Democracy does not always bring secular democrats to power. To be more precise, democracy might yield a popular government, but the assumption that that government will support a liberal democratic constitution that conceives of human rights in the European or American sense is by no means certain. Unrest does not always lead to a revolution, a revolution does not always lead to a democracy, and a democracy does not always lead to a European- or American-style constitution.

In Egypt today, just as it is unclear whether the Egyptian military will cede power in any practical sense, it is also unclear whether the Islamists can form a coherent government or how extreme such a government might be. And as we analyze the possibilities, it is important to note that this analysis really isn’t about Egypt. Rather, Egypt serves as a specimen to examine — a case study of an inherent contradiction in Western ideology and, ultimately, of an attempt to create a coherent foreign policy.


Core Beliefs

Western countries, following the principles of the French Revolution, have two core beliefs. The first is the concept of national self-determination, the idea that all nations (and what the term “nation” means is complex in itself) have the right to determine for themselves the type of government they wish. The second is the idea of human rights, which are defined in several documents but are all built around the basic values of individual rights, particularly the right not only to participate in politics but also to be free in your private life from government intrusion.

The first principle leads to the idea of the democratic foundations of the state. The second leads to the idea that the state must be limited in its power in certain ways and the individual must be free to pursue his own life in his own way within a framework of law limited by the principles of liberal democracy. The core assumption within this is that a democratic polity will yield a liberal constitution. This assumes that the majority of the citizens, left to their own devices, will favor the Enlightenment’s definition of human rights. This assumption is simple, but its application is tremendously complex. In the end, the premise of the Western project is that national self-determination, expressed through free elections, will create and sustain constitutional democracies.

It is interesting to note that human rights activists and neoconservatives, who on the surface are ideologically opposed, actually share this core belief. Both believe that democracy and human rights flow from the same source and that creating democratic regimes will create human rights. The neoconservatives believe outside military intervention might be an efficient agent for this. Human rights groups oppose this, preferring to organize and underwrite democratic movements and use measures such as sanctions and courts to compel oppressive regimes to cede power. But they share common ground on this point as well. Both groups believe that outside intervention is needed to facilitate the emergence of an oppressed public naturally inclined toward democracy and human rights.

This, then, yields a theory of foreign policy in which the underlying strategic principle must not only support existing constitutional democracies but also bring power to bear to weaken oppressive regimes and free the people to choose to build the kind of regimes that reflect the values of the European Enlightenment.


Complex Questions and Choices

The case of Egypt raises an interesting and obvious question regardless of how it all turns out. What if there are democratic elections and the people choose a regime that violates the principles of Western human rights? What happens if, after tremendous Western effort to force democratic elections, the electorate chooses to reject Western values and pursue a very different direction — for example, one that regards Western values as morally reprehensible and aims to make war against them? One obvious example of this is Adolph Hitler, whose ascent to power was fully in keeping with the processes of the Weimar Republic — a democratic regime — and whose clearly stated intention was to supersede that regime with one that was popular (there is little doubt that the Nazi regime had vast public support), opposed to constitutionalism in the democratic sense and hostile to constitutional democracy in other countries.

The idea that the destruction of repressive regimes opens the door for democratic elections that will not result in another repressive regime, at least by Western standards, assumes that all societies find Western values admirable and want to emulate them. This is sometimes the case, but the general assertion is a form of narcissism in the West that assumes that all reasonable people, freed from oppression, would wish to emulate us.

At this moment in history, the obvious counterargument rests in some, but not all, Islamist movements. We do not know that the Islamist groups in Egypt will be successful, and we do not know what ideologies they will pursue, but they are Islamists and their views of man and moral nature are different from those of the European Enlightenment. Islamists have a principled disagreement with the West on a wide range of issues, from the relation of the individual to the community to the distinction between the public and private sphere. They oppose the Egyptian military regime not only because it limits individual freedom but also because it violates their understanding of the regime’s moral purpose. The Islamists have a different and superior view of moral political life, just as Western constitutional democracies see their own values as superior.

The collision between the doctrine of national self-determination and the Western notion of human rights is not an abstract question but an extremely practical one for Europe and the United States. Egypt is the largest Arab country and one of the major centers of Islamic life. Since 1952, it has had a secular and military-run government. Since 1973, it has had a pro-Western government. At a time when the United States is trying to end its wars in the Islamic world (along with its NATO partners, in the case of Afghanistan), and with relations with Iran already poor and getting worse, the democratic transformation of Egypt into a radical Islamic regime would shift the balance of power in the region wildly.

This raises questions regarding the type of regime Egypt has, whether it is democratically elected and whether it respects human rights. Then there is the question of how this new regime might affect the United States and other countries. The same can be said, for example, about Syria, where an oppressive regime is resisting a movement that some in the West regard as democratic. It may be, but its moral principles might be anathema to the West. At the same time, the old repressive regime might be unpopular but more in the interests of the West.

Then pose this scenario: Assume there is a choice between a repressive, undemocratic regime that is in the interests of a Western country and a regime that is democratic but repressive by Western standards and hostile to those interests. Which is preferable, and what steps should be taken?

These are blindingly complex questions that some observers — the realists as opposed to the idealists — say not only are unanswerable but also undermine the ability to pursue national interests without in any way improving the moral character of the world. In other words, you are choosing between two types of repression from a Western point of view and there is no preference. Therefore, a country like the United States should ignore the moral question altogether and focus on a simpler question, and one that’s answerable: the national interest.

Egypt is an excellent place to point out the tension within U.S. foreign policy between idealists, who argue that pursuing Enlightenment principles is in the national interest, and realists, who argue that the pursuit of principles is very different from their attainment. You can wind up with regimes that are neither just nor protective of American interests. In other words, the United States can wind up with a regime hostile to the United States and oppressive by American standards. Far from a moral improvement, this would be a practical disaster.


Mission and Power

There is a temptation to accept the realist argument. Its weakness is that its definition of the national interest is never clear. The physical protection of the United States is obviously an issue — and given 9/11, it is not a trivial matter. At the same time, the physical safety of the United States is not always at stake. What exactly is our interest in Egypt, and does it matter to us whether it is pro-American? There are answers to this but not always obvious ones, and the realists frequently have trouble defining the national interest. Even if we accept the idea that the primary objective of U.S. foreign policy is securing the national interest irrespective of moral considerations, what exactly is the national interest?

It seems to me that two principles emerge. The first is that having no principles beyond “interest” is untenable. Interest seems very tough-minded, but it is really a vapid concept when you drill into it. The second principle is that there can be no moral good without power. Proclaiming a principle without having the power to pursue it is a form of narcissism. You know you are doing no good, but talking about it makes you feel superior. Interest is not enough, and morality without power is mere talk.

So what is to be done about Egypt? The first thing is to recognize that little can be done, not because it would be morally impermissible but because, practically, Egypt is a big country that is hard to influence, and meddling and failing is worse than doing nothing at all. Second, it must be understood that Egypt matters and the outcome of this affair, given the past decade, is not a matter to which the United States can afford to be indifferent.

An American strategy on Egypt — one that goes beyond policy papers in Washington — is hard to define. But a number of points can be deduced from this exercise. First, it is essential to not create myths. The myth of the Egyptian revolution was that it was going to create a constitutional democracy like Western democracies. That simply wasn’t the issue on the table. The issue was between the military regime and an Islamist regime. This brings us to the second point, which is that sometimes, in confronting two different forms of repression, the issue is to select the one that is most in the national interest. This will force you to define the national interest, to a salutary effect.

Washington, like all capitals, likes policies and hates political philosophy. The policies frequently fail to come to grips with reality because the policymakers don’t grasp the philosophical implications. The contradiction inherent in the human rights and the neoconservative approach is one thing, but the inability of the realists to define with rigor what the national interest is creates policy papers of monumental insignificance. Both sides create polemics as a substitute for thought.

It’s in places like Egypt where this reality is driven home. One side really believed that Egypt would become like Minnesota. The other side knew it wouldn’t and devised a plan to be tough-minded — but not tough-minded enough to define what the point of the plan was. This is the crisis of U.S. foreign policy. It has always been there, but given American power, it is one that creates global instability. One part of the American regime wants to be just; the other part wants to be tough. Neither realizes that such a distinction is the root of the problem. Look at the American (and European) policy toward Egypt and I think you can see the predicament.

The solution does not rest in slogans or ideology, or in soft versus hard power. It rests in clarity on both the moral mission of the regime and its ability to understand and wield power effectively. And this requires the study of political philosophy. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, with his distinction between the “general will” and the “will of all,” might be a good place to start. Or reading the common sense of Mark Twain might be a more pleasant substitute.

Egypt and the Idealist-Realist Debate in U.S. Foreign Policy is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

LSU-Alabama remix

Enough said....only one comment needed

GEAUX TIGERS!

Officer Down

Chief of Police Jerry E. Hicks, Sr.
Leadwood Missouri Police Department
End of Watch: Sunday, December 4, 2011
Age: 69
Tour: 25 years
Badge # 701
Incident Date: 11/29/2011

Chief of Police Jerry Hicks succumbed to injuries sustained six days earlier when his patrol car collided with a tree at the intersection of Route 8 and Railroad Road, in Washington County, at about 6:30 am.

He was driving to the Potosi Correctional Center to pickup an inmate work crew when the vehicle slid on a patch of ice on a highway bridge, causing it to leave the roadway. The vehicle collided with the tree on the passenger side.



Chief Hicks was flown to a hospital in Creve Couer, where he remained unconscious until succumbing to severe head injuries.



Chief Hicks was a U.S. Navy veteran and had served with the Leadwood Police Department for 25 years. He is survived by his two adult children, five grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren.

Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh.

The Israeli's are taking action where needed....

I have to say an intelligence article on intelligence is a rare find theses days. But this is an interesting piece from the LA Times.

Mysterious blasts, slayings suggest covert efforts in Iran
Attacks targeting nuclear scientists and sites lead some observers to believe that the U.S. and Israel are trying to derail Iran's programs.

By Ken Dilanian, Los Angeles Times December 4, 2011

At an Iranian military base 30 miles west of Tehran, engineers were working on weapons that the armed forces chief of staff had boasted could give Israel a "strong punch in the mouth."

But then a huge explosion ripped through the Revolutionary Guard Corps base on Nov. 12, leveling most of the buildings. Government officials said 17 people were killed, including a founder of Iran's ballistic missile program, Gen. Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam.

Iranian officials called the blast an accident. Perhaps it was.

Decades of international sanctions have left Iran struggling to obtain technology and spare parts for military programs and commercial industries, leading in some cases to dangerous working conditions.

However, many former U.S. intelligence officials and Iran experts believe that the explosion — the most destructive of at least two dozen unexplained blasts in the last two years — was part of a covert effort by the U.S., Israel and others to disable Iran's nuclear and missile programs. The goal, the experts say, is to derail what those nations fear is Iran's quest for nuclear weapons capability and to stave off an Israeli or U.S. airstrike to eliminate or lessen the threat.

"It looks like the 21st century form of war," said Patrick Clawson, who directs the Iran Security Initiative at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a Washington think tank. "It does appear that there is a campaign of assassinations and cyber war, as well as the semi-acknowledged campaign of sabotage."

Or perhaps not. Any such operation would be highly classified, and those who might know aren't talking. The result is Washington's latest national security parlor game — trying to figure out who, if anyone, is responsible for the unusual incidents.

For years, the U.S. and its allies have sought to hinder Iran's weapons programs by secretly supplying faulty parts, plans or software, former intelligence officials say. No proof of sabotage has emerged, but Iran's nuclear program clearly has hit obstacles that thwarted progress in recent years.

"We definitely are doing that," said Art Keller, a former CIA case officer who worked on Iran. "It's pretty much the stated mission of the [CIA's] counter-proliferation division to do what it takes to slow … Iran's weapons of mass destruction program."

Iran insists that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only.

Many Western experts are convinced that American and Israeli engineers secretly fed the Stuxnet computer worm into Iran's nuclear program in 2010. The virus reportedly caused centrifuges used to enrich uranium to spin out of control and shatter. Neither the U.S. nor Israeli government has acknowledged any role in the apparent cyber-attack...

It seems the Israeli's are handling a problem with their standard MO. Take out the brains behind the threat. Gerald Bull was assassinated in 1991 after working on an Iraqi super gun that had one target. The speculation was the Mossad handled him. And unlike our neutered CIA, the Mossad wasn't destroyed by idiots in the Congress (Thanks Frank Church) and when the country is surrounded by enemies it motivates you to the serious matters. Not environmental decay in the Sudan but what can be done to weaken enemies who have threaded to wipe our country off the face of the earth.

All in all a decent article worth a few minutes for the read.

Again, why do American Jews support Democrats...

Again and again the question is asked why do American Jews give their time, money and other support to liberals and the Democratic Party. Those two groups are the worse enemies Israeli has outside of Tehran.

Now the fact an Obama supporter who was paid back with an ambassadorship would say this should surprise no one.

Obama Fundraiser and Ambassador Blames Israel for Anti-Semitism (Updated) | The Weekly Standard

The U.S. ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, recently told a conference hosted by the European Jewish Union that Israel is to blame for growing anti-Semitism harbored by people of Muslim faith.

“A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,” Gutman reportedly said, according to the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. “He also argued that an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty will significantly diminish Muslim anti-Semitism.”

According to the account in the Israeli paper, “The legal experts at the event were visibly stunned by Gutman’s words, and the next speaker offered a scathing rebuttal to the envoy’s remarks.”

Gutman was a major fundraiser for President Obama’s 2008 election campaign. He bundled $500,000 for Obama, according to OpenSecrets.org, personally giving at least $2,300 to the campaign.

In 2009, Obama nominated Gutman, a Washington, D.C. attorney, to be ambassador to Belgium.

A little fact of life. Ambassadors (with exceptions like Great Britain, Russia, China) are political rewards. The Deputy Ambassador is the power behind the throne and Belgium in not in the A team of ambassadors. But I did a couple of Google searches and I found that according to Wikipedia is our Ambassador to Belgium is Jewish and his parents are Holocaust survivors. And I also found this from the US Embassy in Belgium.

I said that it is both fortunate and unfortunate that the largest part of the solution for this second type of problem – too often lumped under a general banner of anti-Semitism – is in the hands of Israel, the Palestinians and Arab neighbors in the Middle East. It is fortunate because it means that, unlike traditional hatred of minorities, a path towards improving and resolving it does at least exist. It is crucial for the Middle East – but it is crucial for the Jewish and Arab communities in Europe and for countries around the globe – that Mid-East peace negotiations continue, that settlements abate, and that progress towards a lasting peace be made and then such a peace reached in the Middle East. Were a lasting peace in the Middle East to be reached, were joint and cooperative Israeli-Arab attentions turned to focus instead on such serious, common threats such as Iran, this second type of ethnic tension and bigotry here in Europe – which is clearly growing today – would clearly abate. I can envision the day when it disappears. Peace in the Middle East would indeed equate with a huge reduction of this form of labeled “anti-Semitism” here in Europe.

It is at the same time somewhat unfortunate that most of the cause and thus most of the solution for tension and hatred in Europe, for growing problems at Belgian universities, for epithets in the streets, rest with governments and people a continent away. For, in some respect, citizens, parents, religious and community leaders here in Europe can simply try to promote understanding and patience, while ensuring law enforcement serves its mission, without being able fully to address the most root causes and most efficient cures....

This fool thinks the Mullahs in Tehran hate Israel because of the Palestinians. No, they hate Israel because they hate Jews period. The Palestinians are a conveiant whipping boy to get idiots protesting, writing checks, etc. The anti-Semites out there will not be satisfied until Israel is wiped off the face of the earth. Why Jews in America are supporting the thinking this people can be negotiated with is beyond me. This is just another form of appeasement and I recall the wisdom of Winston Churchill on this:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Officer Down

 

Correctional Officer Buddy Ray Herron
Oregon Department of Corrections
End of Watch: Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Age: 42
Tour: 4 years
Incident Date: 11/28/2011

Correctional Officer Buddy Herron was assaulted and fatally stabbed along Highway 11, two miles north of Pendleton, shortly after 11:00 pm.

It is believed that he had stopped to assist at the scene of a single car accident while en route to begin his shift at the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution. At some point after stopping he was stabbed by the driver, who then stole Officer Herron's pickup truck. Despite his wound, Officer Herron was able to call 911. Responding units transferred him to St. Anthony's Hospital where he succumbed to his wound shortly after midnight.

The suspect was arrested in the vehicle early the next morning following a vehicle pursuit. He has been charged with parole violations and murder. It was determined that the vehicle he had originally crashed was stolen and had been involved in a burglary earlier in the evening.

Officer Herron had served with the Oregon Department of Corrections for four years and had previously served with the Arizona Department of Corrections. He was a veteran of the U.S. Navy Reserve and also served as a volunteer firefighter. He is survived by his wife and four children.

Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh. 


 

All I can say is one word......Pleasssssssse!

Hey, look at me!

Biden says he won’t close door on 2016 - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room


Vice President Biden... refused to rule out a possible presidential bid in 2016...

...In an interview that aired Thursday on NBC’s “Today,” Biden once again left the door open for running for president in 2016.

“I am never ready to close the door on anything,” Biden said. “I am intent on reelecting Barack Obama president of the United States of America. The rest will take care of itself.”

“My one focus right now is getting the president reelected. I’ll make up my mind on [running in 2016] later,” Biden told CNN. “I’m not closing any door. My job now and will be vice president of the United States, and we got the order right — President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.”

Biden previously ran for president in 2008....

And plagiarized other people's work in the past. Please, let him run again.

A tale of three presidents

All I can say is it's good work if you can get it.

Is it just me or is he on a girl's bike? 

It must be nice being President... Obama to jet off to Hawaii for SEVENTEEN DAY Christmas vacation

While most Americans are lucky to get a few weeks of holiday every year, it seems the country’s leader gets a little more freedom in the matter.

President Barack Obama has announced his Christmas vacation to Hawaii – for a staggering 17-day trip.

Obama, who visited the island just two weeks ago for an economic summit, will head to Honolulu on Saturday December 17 until Monday January 2.

The president, who was raised in Hawaii until he was six, will be joined by his wife Michelle and their daughters, Malia, 13, and Sasha, 10.

The White House travel office announced the president has no public events scheduled for the trip.

The President's family covers the cost of a private beach front residence in Kailua, Oahu, for their vacation - a ‘Winter White House’ that costs up to $3,500 a day, or $75,000 a month.
But the local and federal taxpayers help pay the bill for travel and security.

Last year the trip cost more than $1 million,according to the Hawaii Reporter.
Obama announced the trip during a campaign fundraiser on Oahu's Leeward Coast during his stay on the island last month.

He covered the cost of his family's accommodation, but the rest was covered by the taxpayers.
The bill to house Secret Service agents and Navy Seals in beach front accommodation stretched to $16,800.

A further hotel bill of $134,400 covered 24 White House staff staying in the Moana Hotel at a rate of $400 a day.

The estimate, by the Hawaii Reporter, also included $250,000 for local police overtime, $1 million for the president's own round trip flight to Hawaii on Air Force One, and $10,000 for a local
ambulance to accompany the presidential motorcade.

‘It is great to be home, great to feel that Aloha spirit,’ he said.

...It follows an 11-day stay in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, earlier this year, which is also believed to have cost the U.S. taxpayer millions....

I'm a bit split on this. The fact he is squandering millions of tax dollars on his rest and relaxation really pisses me off. Especially since the people in the media who make no objection to this howled like wolves when George W Bush or Reagan would go to their ranches and chop wood. And unlike the current occupant no one questioned those men were still working every day. I really think with Bush the 4th Estate was annoyed while Clinton and this guy brought them to Martha's Vineyard and Hawaii, Bush was in Crawford were there is nothing and the people there were not so happy to see them.

But if it keeps him from screwing up more and hopefully helps to his downfall....it's money well spent.

To boldly go where no recall has gone before.

From an episode of Star Trek-DS9, I recall the words of Odo to Quark, after the Ferengi said his Rom brother fixed something.

"Rom is an idiot. He couldn't fix a straw if it were bent."

Back flip a few hundred years and we see a formerly great symbol of American industrial might and vision, Government Motors. After wasting billions in an over glorified golf cart, with billions more in tax subsidies backing the boondoggle up, they have sold 6000 units nationwide. And now because they are a possible fire risk, they are coming back.

GM willing to buy back Volts

By TOM KRISHER AP Auto Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- General Motors will buy Chevrolet Volts back from any owner who is afraid the electric cars will catch fire, the company's CEO said Thursday.

In an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, CEO Dan Akerson insisted that the cars are safe, but said the company will purchase the Volts because it wants to keep customers happy. Three fires have broken out in Volts after side-impact crash tests done by the federal government.

Akerson said that if necessary, GM will recall the more than 6,000 Volts now on the road in the U.S. and repair them once the company and federal safety regulators figure out what caused the fires.

"If we find that is the solution, we will retrofit every one of them," Akerson said. "We'll make it right."

The fires happened seven days to three weeks after tests performed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And GM has said there's no threat of fires immediately after crashes. GM also has said that no Volts involved in real-world crashes have caught fire.

Still, NHTSA has opened an investigation into the fires and has asked other companies that make electric cars for battery testing data. NHTSA said the safety testing hasn't raised concerns about electric vehicles other than the Volt.

"The fire broke out seven days later. Not seven minutes. Not seven seconds," Akerson said, adding that the company wants to fix the problem so people continue to have faith in Volts and other advanced technology cars. The company is notified of any Volt crash through its OnStar safety system and dispatches a team with 48 hours to drain the battery, preventing fires, he said.

"I think in the interest of General Motors, the industry, the electrification of the car, it's best to get it right now than when you have - instead of 6,000 - 60,000 or 600,000 cars on the road," he said...

You may be interested in electrification of the car but the car buying public is not you moron. In case you haven't realized that without them you will not recoup your losses (God forbid make a profit) on this crap. You are squandering your resources on a one of the greatest waste of money every in the history of American capitalism. And do you think your gravy train from DC will continue forever. At some point conservatives will cut you off and you will have to produce things that sell to the general public.

Gee, what a concept. Building things that the public wants to buy, selling it at a price the public is willing to pay so you make money and the public feels like they have not be squandered. Maybe you should look into that Mr. Akerson.

...Earlier this week GM offered loaner cars to all Volt owners until the cause of the fires is found and fixed. So far, Akerson said 16 Volt owners have inquired and only two have taken the loaners.

6000 cars sold nationwide in two years with a five digit federal tax credit. That's an average of 120 cars a state in two years. Sixty cars per year per state for two years. Now there s a serious safty hazard. And you wonder if this piece of s@#$ is viable.

UPDATE: From this morning's Hotair, their take on this issue and marketing

The reputation of the Chevy Volt – part of the next generation of “green” vehicles – has come under fire (sorry) under increasing scrutiny since a few of them burst into flames recently. At the center of the controversy are the huge lithium-ion batteries, manufactured in Korea, which may be subject to some incendiary events which are making consumers nervous...

...A smart move on the part of GM, clearly. To be successful in marketing you need to be sensitive to what options consumers want and are willing to pay for, as well as identifying features which are less popular. Cars prone to suddenly turning into a human size barbeque grill, according to recent customer satisfaction surveys, clearly fall into the latter category.

Security Weekly: A Deadly U.S. Attack on Pakistani Soil December 1st, 2011

By Nate Hughes

In the early hours of Nov. 26 on the Afghan-Pakistani border, what was almost certainly a flight of U.S. Army AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and an AC-130 gunship killed some two dozen Pakistani servicemen at two border outposts inside Pakistan. Details remain scarce, conflicting and disputed, but the incident was known to have taken place near the border of the Afghan provinces of Kunar and Nangarhar and the Mohmand agency of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The death toll inflicted by the United States against Pakistani servicemen is unprecedented, and while U.S. commanders and NATO leaders have expressed regret over the incident, the reaction from Pakistan has been severe.


Claims and Interests

The initial Pakistani narrative of the incident describes an unprovoked and aggressive attack on well-established outposts more than a mile inside Pakistani territory — outposts known to the Americans and ones that representatives of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) had visited in the past. The attack supposedly lasted for some two hours despite distressed communications from the outpost to the Pakistani military’s general headquarters in Rawalpindi.

(click here to enlarge image)
The United States was quick to acknowledge that Pakistani troops were probably killed by attack aircraft providing close air support to a joint U.S.-Afghan patrol near the Kunar border, and while U.S. Marine Gen. James Mattis, the head of U.S. Central Command, promised a high-level investigation, the United States and NATO seemed to be more interested in smoothing relations with Islamabad than endorsing or correcting initial reports about the specifics of the attack.

What has ensued has been a classic media storm of accusations, counteraccusations, theories and specifics provided by unnamed sources that all serve to obscure the truth as much as they clarify it. Meanwhile, no matter what actually happened, aggressive spin campaigns have been launched to shape perceptions of the incident for myriad interests. Given the longstanding tensions between Washington and Islamabad as well as a record of cross-border incidents, stakeholders will believe exactly what they want to believe about the Nov. 26 incident, and even an official investigation will have little bearing on their entrenched views.


The Framework

While statements and accusations have often referenced NATO and the ISAF, it is U.S. forces that operate in this part of the country, and this close to the border the unit involved was likely operating under the aegis of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan (the U.S. command in Afghanistan) rather than under the multinational ISAF. Indeed, many American allies have also expressed frustration over the incident, convinced that it undermines ISAF operations in Afghanistan.

Reports indicate that a U.S. special operations team (likely a platoon-sized element, but at least a 12-man detachment) accompanied by Afghan commandos (generally a seven-man squad accompanies a U.S. platoon, but 25- to 30-man platoons sometimes accompany 12-man U.S. teams) were involved in an engagement and called for close air support. It now seems clear that both sides opened fire at some point. At least one unidentified senior Pakistani defense official told The Washington Post that it had been the Pakistanis who fired first, opening up with mortars and machine guns after sending up an illumination round. However, most Pakistani sources continue to deny this.

Given that Washington has been trying to smooth over already tense relations with Islamabad, such an aggressive attack taking place without provocation seems unlikely. In any event, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) operated by the CIA essentially have free rein in Pakistani airspace over the border area and are often used for targeted assassinations, meaning that the involvement of attack helicopters rather than UAVs does lend credence to the close air support claim. (The principle of hot pursuit, which is understood and often exercised by U.S. patrols along the border, might also have been applied.)


The Border

The “border” between Afghanistan and Pakistan in this area is part of the Durand Line agreed upon between the Afghan monarch and the colonial authority of British India in 1893. Not only is the border poorly marked, it also divides extraordinarily rugged terrain and essentially bisects the Pashtun population. And from the British perspective, the agreement was intended to establish a broad buffer between British and Russian interests in Central Asia by establishing a line along the distant, outer frontier of British India. British priorities had little to do with the day-to-day realities of a fixed linear boundary, and to this day the specific border exists primarily on paper.

The border is characterized by a string of outposts — often little more than prepared fighting positions and some crude shelters that are difficult to distinguish between military, government or civilian structures — manned by the paramilitary Frontier Corps on the Pakistani side. These positions presumably are selected for their tactical value in monitoring and dominating the border, and the troops occupying those positions invariably know the general location of the border before them. Similarly, U.S. special operations teams are well trained and practiced in land navigation at night, regularly conduct operations in the area and are there to patrol that very border. Both sides know full well their general positions relative to the border.

A post-attack image of the Pakistani outpost involved in the Nov. 26 cross-border incident.  c: Reuters

A post-attack image of the Pakistani outpost involved in the Nov. 26 cross-border incidentThe point is that, whatever the specifics of the Nov. 26 incident, it appears largely consistent with and governed by the underlying tactical realities of the border. A small Pakistani outpost that perceives a threatening, armed entity will take advantage of its position and heavier weaponry in engaging the force rather than let it slip any closer — and this will be more true the smaller and more isolated the garrison. Under fire, a U.S. interdiction patrol (as distinct from a reconnaissance patrol, for which breaking contact is prescribed if feasible) will move quickly to advantageous terrain dictated by the direction of fire and the immediate geography around it, regardless of the border. If the situation dictates, the patrol may engage in hot pursuit across the border after being attacked.

The border is a highway for insurgents (both those who use Pakistan as a sanctuary for their fight in Afghanistan and those who are doing the reverse), other militants and supplies. That’s why the border outposts are manned and U.S.-Afghan teams conduct patrols — to interdict both types of insurgents. But it also means that there are plenty of armed formations moving around at night, and from the perspective of both a Pakistani outpost and a U.S. patrol, none of them is friendly.


Close Air Support

Pakistani forces have regularly shelled targets on the Afghan side of the border, and on a number of occasions U.S. forces have killed Pakistani troops — in firefights, with artillery, with UAVs and with attack helicopters. Indeed, standard U.S. operating procedures allow Pakistani troops and militants alike to know the probable American response in a given tactical scenario — including what it takes to get close air support called in.

Any dismounted American foot patrol that takes fire from both mortars and heavy machine guns is going to call for whatever fire support it can get. And given the frequency of incidents and the rugged terrain near the border, special operations teams operating near the border are likely to have a flight of Apaches close by ready to provide that support.

The forward-looking infrared sensor mounted on the nose of the AH-64 Apache is capable of remarkable resolution — sufficient to make out not only adult individuals but the shapes of weapons they may be carrying. But the history of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is also rife with incidents where aircrews, acting on the information available to them (and with the context of being called in to support friendly forces under fire), engaged targets only later to find that the activity or weaponry had not been as it appeared — a reporter with a long, telephoto lens on a camera rather than a rocket launcher or children picking up pinecones instead of insurgents emplacing an improvised explosive device.

Particularly on the border, the pilot and gunner are making the same distinction Pakistani outposts and American patrols are likely to make in the area: Armed individuals and groups not known to be friendly are probably hostile. The position of friendly forces will be communicated by the air controller in contact with the aircrew and also generally by infrared strobes or other means. Though the air controller will indicate the immediate threat, any non-friendly position could quickly be judged hostile. Any unit firing or maneuvering with what appears to be weaponry may quickly be deemed hostile in the exigency of the moment and the uncertainty of the environment based on limited information. And while ISAF has tightened its rules of engagement and added additional oversight for close air support in Afghanistan in response to domestic outrage over collateral damage, there is still going to be an enormous difference between the restraint exercised in, say, Marjah, where a population-centered counterinsurgency campaign is actively under way, and an isolated special operations patrol near the Pakistani border in an area known to be frequented by militants.

The Big Picture

In a way, the Afghan-Pakistani border is a microcosm of the U.S.-Pakistani relationship. The U.S. patrols and the Pakistani outposts are there for entirely different and in some cases directly opposing reasons. The Pakistanis are spread thin in the FATA and are focusing their efforts on the Pakistani Taliban, which have their sights set on Islamabad. Not only are they less interested in confronting the Afghan Taliban as a matter of priority, but Pakistani national interest dictates maintaining a functional relationship with the Afghan Taliban as leverage in dealing with the United States and as a way to control Afghanistan as the United States and its allies begin to withdraw.

Hence, elements of the Pakistani military and the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate are actively engaged in supporting the Afghan Taliban and have in some cases come to see common cause with them — not only in supporting the Afghan Taliban but also in actively undermining U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and disrupting Pakistani cooperation with the United States. Indeed, the timing and magnitude of the Nov. 26 incident — which was entirely plausible under a number of scenarios — calls into question whether it may have been staged or intended to provoke the response it did. Some reports have indicated that the Taliban may have staged an initial attack intended to draw the Pakistani positions and the American patrol into a firefight with each other.

Whatever the case, factions that benefit from a greater division between Pakistan and the United States will be aided by the incident and subsequent public outcry — as will the Pakistani state, which is now holding its own cooperation hostage for better terms in its relationship with Washington.

Ultimately, however, there is a reason for the long, established history of cross-border incidents and skirmishes. The United States and Pakistan are playing very different games for very different ends on both sides of the border and in Afghanistan. They have different adversaries and are playing on different timetables. The alliance is one of necessity but hobbled by incompatibility, and near-term American imperatives in Afghanistan — lines of supply, political progress, counterterrorism efforts — clash directly with the long-term American interest in a strong Pakistani state able to manage its territory and keep its nuclear arsenal secure. The near-term demands Washington has made on Islamabad weaken the state and divide the country. Obviously, the Pakistani government intends to retain its strength and keep the country as unified as possible.

The reality is that as long as the political objectives that dictate U.S. and Pakistani military strategies and tactics are generally at odds, there will be tension and conflict. And as long as Pakistani and American forces are both patrolling a border that exists primarily on paper, they will be at odds. Tactically, this means armed groups with many divergent loyalties will be circling one another.


The Fallout

What actually happened early on Nov. 26 is increasingly irrelevant; it is merely a symptom of larger issues that remain unresolved, and the fallout has already taken shape. Pakistan is leveraging the incident for everything it can and is already demonstrating its displeasure (both for political leverage and to satisfy an enraged domestic populace) by doing the following:

Closing the crucial border crossings at Torkham near the Khyber Pass and Chaman to the south
Giving the CIA 15 days to vacate the Shamsi air base in Balochistan from which it conducts UAV operations (though Pakistani airspace reportedly remains open to such flights)
Reviewing its intelligence and military cooperation with the United States and NATO
Boycotting the upcoming Dec. 5 Bonn conference on Afghanistan, though there are some hints already that it may reconsider; it is difficult to imagine what a conference on Afghanistan without Pakistan might achieve, but Islamabad would face other risks in not attending such a conference.
The larger question is whether the calculus for an alliance of necessity between the United States and Pakistan still holds. As the American and allied withdrawal from Afghanistan accelerates, without a political understanding between Washington, Islamabad, Kabul and the Afghan Taliban, there is little prospect of American and Pakistani interests coming into any closer alignment. The United States and its allies are moving for the exits while the Pakistanis try to ensure optimal circumstances surrounding the withdrawal and at the same time ensure maximum leverage to manage whatever ends up being left behind. The two countries still have numerous incentives to continue cooperation, but all the ingredients for cross-border incidents and skirmishes — as well as the opportunity to stage, provoke and exploit those incidents and skirmishes — remain firmly in place.

A Deadly U.S. Attack on Pakistani Soil is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

Austin may be weird.....

But they got a great idea here....

Motorcycle Medics Reach the Injured Faster in Austin

November 28, 2011 By Jessica Mulholland

In early June, emergency medical services (EMS) personnel in Austin, Texas, began using a different mode of transportation to reach the injured along the congested and accident-prone Interstate 35: medically equipped motorcycles. Rather than navigating the congested highway in ambulances, EMS personnel now hop on their motorcycles to respond to traffic accident victims — a tactic that originated in London, and has proven successful in Florida’s Miami-Dade County for nearly five years.

Motorcycles can arrive two to three minutes faster than an ambulance — especially during large congested events like Austin’s South by Southwest music festival, said Eric S. Jakubauskas, commander of Austin-Travis County EMS Special Events. And those extra minutes can mean the difference between life and death, he said. “That can be special if the person is in severe respiratory distress or was having a cardiac problem — two to three minutes can mean whether you resuscitate the person or you don’t.”

The motorcycles — BMW G650 X-Ps equipped with lights and sirens and suspension that can handle rougher terrain than a standard street bike — are outfitted with life-support equipment such as medications, airway equipment and first aid supplies. Also, an automatic external defibrillator allows EMS technicians to monitor the heart if needed. O

Motorcyle medics can treat an injury or illness for up to 15 minutes; they can give immediate care and determine the severity of injuries. An ambulance is always immediately behind them, Jakubauskas said...

...Austin-Travis County EMS Special Events has four motorcycles, which Jakubauskas said have all been donated. “The taxpayers haven’t paid a dime for the motorcycles yet — more than $42,000 worth of motorcycles.”

The current deployment is an open-ended pilot, Jakubauskas said. EMS personnel riding the bikes complete a modified Austin Police Department motorcycle course and go through recurring training.

“Hopefully within the next three to six months, we’ll be able to pull enough data [from the pilot] to be able to justify moving forward,” he said, adding that right now, some paramedics are taken from ambulance duty to work as motorcycle paramedics — they’re not dedicated like a motorcycle police officer would be. “We put them on extra duty and put them on the streets. And hopefully we can put some people on permanent staffing for the motorcycle program.”

Austin is weird (but has a great group of restaurants!) but on this they are great!