Today's Democrat Party views the United States military as nothing more than a political tool to further their agenda. And after Benghazi we see that our troops and intelligence operators are expendable if Democrats think sacrificing them is in their best political interests. But don't take it from me; just look at what they do. Instead of preserving the world's most effective combat force, the Democrat Party views the U.S. military as a massive source of funding (defense budget cuts), an opportunity to shore up political support through social engineering (allowing openly gay service members), and a means to further their liberal internationalist agenda (so-called “Responsibility to Protect” operations like Libya). They know that the military community tends to vote strongly Republican, which partly explains their open contempt of the men and women that serve in the Armed Forces – whether falsely labeling them cold-blooded murderers (Rep. John Murtha), comparing them to Nazis, KGB, and the Khmer Rouge (Sen. Dick Durbin), joking about their intelligence (Sec. John Kerry)... the examples of the Democrat Party's distaste for the military could easily fill an entire article. But throughout American history, our troops knew at least if they were wounded, in danger of being overrun, or even killed, our military will do everything in its power to get rescue or recover you. No one gets left behind. At least that's how it used to be. That is, until Benghazi, which has become one of the most dishonorable events in American history. When our consulate was attacked and overran, President Obama left Americans to die. Any rescue attempt was cut off – not by our enemies, but by the Obama administration. Even worse than the tragic and preventable deaths of four Americans, Washington's reaction over the last eight months shows the utter disregard the Democrat Party and media have for not only the fallen, but for all of our troops and operators. I am not saying that each and every Democrat politician wanted those men to die. But can you name any Democrat politician that has said we need to get to the bottom of Benghazi? Has any Democrat even so much as distanced themself from their party's callous disregard for the fallen? Washington can say they support the troops all day, it's time they show us how they support our troops. Since day one, the Democrat Party – primarily the Obama administration – and their media allies have sought to make the story go away. Since that didn't work, they have resorted to distracting the American people and redirecting the focus by claiming Republicans are only making this an issue for political gain. Just imagine if your son or daughter was killed in the attack and politicians reacted by saying that anyone trying to find out answers was only using the tragedy for political leverage. That really says something about our nation when the majority party can shamelessly stoop so low – and get away with it. We need to be asking ourselves: what kind of people are we electing when merely investigating Benghazi somehow becomes politicization of a tragedy? After all, the men left to die in the consulate weren't Democrats or Republicans; they were Americans. In our society, the government serves the people, and therefore owes us answers. But the aspiring tyrants in Washington view everything – which now includes the lives of our troops – in terms of advancing their agenda and narratives to gain political power. Information or events harmful to the party or agenda must be rewritten or covered up, as was the case with Benghazi. With the president only weeks away from a potentially close election, the White House had no options that would serve them politically. A rescue operation could draw attention to the operation in Libya and lead to more questions (such as what were they actually doing in Benghazi) – questions that would likely lead to more problems for the administration. It already doesn't look good when al Qaeda-linked militants strike U.S. soil again on 9/11 when you have already declared the War on Terror over. To the Obama administration, they had nothing but bad choices, so to them, the answer was to let the consulate fall, then handle the problem by managing the story. So, a co-ordinated, heavily armed assault magically becomes protestors angry about an American anti-Islam YouTube video that nobody had actually seen. It is unlikely that anyone in the newsrooms believed that the narrative was anything but outright lies, but they played right along, because their agenda aligns with that of the Democrat Party. The false narrative allowing them to shift the focus as much as possible to keep things in a more manageable and politically palatable light. The administration bet that their fabricated account on Benghazi would hold out until the news cycle moved on, thanks to a complicit media. Anyone looking into the attack is attacked for politicizing the tragedy. Hope the lies stick, and once the story becomes “old” news, they could just dismiss it. Fortunately, the story didn't go away. As of this writing, no one has been held accountable or has admitted responsibility over Benghazi. There has been no real response to discourage our enemies from further attacks on the United States. Sure, there have been meaningless platitudes and grandstanding, but that is only going through the motions; no one believes that Obama will actually do anything because he clearly doesn't take our national security seriously. The Obama administration, the Democrat Party, and their allies in media have indicated by their actions and inactions that they simply don't care about what happened in Libya – they only care about their political agenda. What few reporters that are actually looking into Benghazi are being ostracized by their own organizations. Politicians looking into Benghazi are smeared by Democrats and the media. Commanding officers in the military have been fired. State Department employees coming forward are no doubt doing so at the risk of their careers. Have we,... Continue reading

I've been writing about the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea for years. This sovereignty stripping, wealth transferring treaty has periodically reared its ugly head since Ronald Reagan was president, and its ratification is still sought by today's political, media, and even military elite. But aside from the fact that we will be sacrificing our Naval superiority and paying exorbitant fees to the UN for mining our own resources, the underlying principles of the treaty - an internationally agreed-upon "constitution" and rule of law for the world's oceans - sound great. Problem is, China - who signed UNCLOS in 1996 - is claiming islands surrounded by oil and natural gas deposits. Islands they appear to have no valid claim to. Islands that already belong to other nations. Chinese naval vessels have targeted a Japanese destroyer and helicopters near the Senkaku Islands. When Japanese officials complained, the Chinese incredibly blamed them for taking a warlike posture. For months, the Chinese have maintained a delicate standoff with the Philippines in the Scarborough Shoals, sending boats 500 nautical miles to harvest fish 124 miles form the Philippine coast. From The US Report: If the UNCLOS actually was worth the paper it was written on, then there would be a legal and naval deterrent to any illegal activity by the Chinese. But corruption, not law, rules the UN. In 1947, the Chinese government claimed virtually all of the South China Sea in what has become known as the “Nine-Dash Line.” China, a member nation of UNCLOS, refuses to explain the details on how they reached their far-fetching boundary. A U.S. diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks states that a senior Chinese government maritime law expert admittedly did not know of any historical basis behind the “Nine-Dash Line.” China knows that if they open the door to international scrutiny, their extravagant claim and ambiguous evidence would not survive and any illusions of a legitimacy would vanish. And so would the massive deposits of oil and natural gas surrounding these desolate islands the Chinese want exclusive access to. The Philippines even offered to settle the matter of Scarborough Shoal in a UNCLOS tribunal, but the Chinese have stated they will not participate in any of the treaty's dispute resolution mechanisms – or abide by any UNCLOS ruling. The Chinese claim to seek bilateral talks because they know that the Philippines will refuse, and the issue will remain unsettled. The Chinese interest is to keep things exactly as they are. Diplomacy works great when one side has significant leverage over the other, both parties can find common ground, or if both parties at least wish to avoid war. The problem is, the Chinese political and military leadership has been telling its people to prepare for war. They have the economy, resources, military and naval forces, and the national will to make it happen. And who is going to stand in their way? China can be aggressive because they know that the UN is only out to get paid, President Obama's “soft power” is big on soft and short on power, and no other nation is capable of doing anything about it. The United States has mutual defense pacts with both Japan and the Philippines, but who knows whether President Obama will honor them? Not so long ago, our Navy was continually conducting "freedom of navigation" cruises to deter this kind of aggression. Just our occasional presence alone was enough. Now, our diplomats can only offer empty and meaningless platitudes to assure our Pacific allies that we have their back. While that may be enough for the administration's sycophantic following in the U.S. media, it certainly isn't going to fool the Chinese, who live under the old rule of "you are only as strong as your reputation to back it up." I would love to live in a world where an international law of the sea actually worked and the world didn't expect the United States to solve all their problems with our blood and treasure. But whether or not China starts World War III, let's at least realize that toothless, corrupt treaties are no replacement for naval superiority. Continue reading

1777: Following the surprise American victory at Trenton (N.J.) days earlier, British forces under Lt. Gen. Charles Cornwallis counterattack Gen. George Washington’s Continental Army at Assunpink Creek. The British withdraw after three failed assaults against American positions, and abandon New Jersey after another defeat the following day. 1863: Union Maj. Gen. William S. Rosecrans’ Army of the Cumberland defeats Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg’s Army of Tennessee in Murphysboro, Tenn. Losses were heavy; casualty percentages were higher during the Battle of Stones River than during any other engagement during the Civil War. 1943: The 32nd Infantry Division captures the strategic town of Buna, New Guinea and its airfield in the first major land victory against the Japanese in World War II. 1944: U.S. forces – including the 32nd Infantry Division – land at Saidor, New Guinea, isolating 15,000 Japanese troops. 1967: Col. (future Brig. Gen. and triple ace) Robin Olds leads a flight of F-4 Phantoms over North Vietnam, shooting down nearly half of the North Vietnamese air force’s fighter inventory without a single loss to U.S. aircraft. Image of the Day: Happy 50th birthday to the Navy SEALs Adapted (and abridged) in part from “This Week in US Military History” by W. Thomas Smith Jr. at Human Events. Continue reading

1775: The Continental Army suffers its first major defeat when an American invasion force commanded by Maj. Gen. Richard Montgomery unsuccessfully assaults the British at Quebec. The attack yields fewer than 20 British casualties at the cost of over 50 killed – including Gen. Montgomery – and over 400 captured. 1862: USS Monitor, the U.S. Navy’s first ironclad ship, sinks during a storm off the coast of Cape Hatteras, N.C., along with 16 of her crew. 1942: Emperor Hirohito permits Japanese forces on Guadalcanal to retreat after five months of fighting. 1946: Although noting that “a state of war still exists,” Pres. Harry Truman proclaims an end to American hostilities in World War II. Treaties with Germany or Japan are not signed until 1951 and 1952, respectively. 1995: The 1st Armored Division crosses the Sava River into Bosnia-Herzogovina to begin a NATO peacekeeping operation. Image of the Day: A tight formation of "Short Little Ugly F---ers" Continue reading

On this day in 1983, Pres. Ronald Reagan took full responsibility for the October bombing of the Beirut Embassy in Lebanon that killed 241 U.S. troops. Contrast that with the lies, stonewalling, and passing the buck of the Obama administration in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack. Of course, neither president was directly responsible for the death of American service members overseas; we must not lose sight that both of these attacks were perpetrated by America's enemies. However the policies of both presidents and the actions of their subordinates certainly played a role and is worth further investigation (in Obama's case) and discussion. Reagan wasn't perfect. No man is. But by taking responsibility for something that happened under his watch, President Reagan displayed a level class that Americans are unlikely to ever see from the man who currently occupies the White House. I have fought against the restrictive rules of engagement in Afghanistan under Bush and Obama as part of the counterinsurgency doctrine. To be fair, under the Reagan administration Marines were not allowed to have loaded weapons during their peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, and were only allowed to return fire under certain circumstances. Had the Marines pulling security outside the barracks been locked and loaded, then those 241 Marines, sailors, and soldiers probably wouldn't have died. After the attack, Reagan withdrew the peacekeeping force. But why send combat troops to a country that poses no significant threat to the United States in the first place? When a president feels it is necessary to handicap our military's ability to respond to deadly force in a particular theater, then we probably shouldn't send men with guns in the first place. In an age of terrorism, I wholeheartedly support counterterrorism. There are plenty of people who not only feel divinely inspired to kill innocent Americans, but also seek to do so. They must be stopped. But when we go beyond intelligence and special operations - putting "boots on the ground" - there has to be a legitimate reason. We have sent enough young men and women to die in the Middle East, Southwest Asia, and North Africa. No matter how much blood we spill in that part of the globe, they will continue to hate us and themselves. They can hate us for free. Stop the foreign aid. Stop propping up dictators and tyrants - the Soviet Union isn't around any more. Stop sending our young men and women to die. And for the love of all that is good, stop buying their oil. We have enough energy resources at home that no matter happens in that part of the globe, it's not our problem any more. Continue reading

All of the books I have reviewed lately have been infantry or special operations, so I really didn't think Viper Pilot, an autobiography of a modern-day Air Force fighter pilot would offer much in the way of excitement. I was mistaken. In an age of low-tech, low-intensity conflicts, dogfights have become all but a distant memory. But while threats facing today's aviators have evolved, they most certainly have not disappeared. U.S. fighter pilots, the world's best at air-to-air combat, have shifted their role towards close air support for ground units. And with all those planes in the sky, somebody has to take on the death-defying job of knocking out enemy surface-to-air missile sites. That job goes to the “Wild Weasels.” The basic objective of a wild weasel mission is for a team of F-16 pilots to fly over enemy air defense sites, forcing the enemy to fire deadly missiles at the pilots. Once pilots detect the launch – assuming the missile doesn't kill the pilot – they use teamwork to counterattack and destroy the launchers and radar stations, making the skies safe for other aircrews in the theater. This process was repeated countless times over Iraq – both during the Persian Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. If you think that fighter pilots are all glory and no guts, soaring 30,000 feet over the mud and blood of combat, then you haven't met Lt. Col. Dan “Two Dogs” Hampton. The now-retired author of Viper Pilot has flown over 150 combat missions in just about every combat operation since Vietnam, earning four Distinguished Flying Crosses for Valor and the Purple Heart... [Read the entire review at The US Report] Continue reading

1862: Realizing an army led by Gen. George McClellan would never defeat Confederate forces, Pres. Abraham Lincoln removes the cautious Union commander, to be replaced days later by Gen. Ambrose Burnside. Two years and three days later, Lincoln would defeat McClellan – a Democrat – in the 1864 presidential election. 1915: Lt. Commander Henry Mustin catapults from the USS North Carolina in a Curtiss AB-2 flying boat, becoming the first American to make a catapult launch from a ship underway. 1917: U.S. Army Maj. (future Brig. Gen.) Theodore Roosevelt Jr. and his younger brother Lt. (future Lt. Col.) Archibald Roosevelt, both sons of former Pres. Theodore Roosevelt (a former U.S. Army cavalry colonel who will receive the Medal of Honor in 2001 for actions during the Spanish-American War), lead the first American patrol into “No Man’s Land” during World War I. Meanwhile in the Atlantic, a torpedo fired by a German U-boat sinks the yacht USS Alcedo, which had been escorting a convoy to France. 21 sailors perish when the yacht becomes the first U.S. warship sunk during World War I. 1923: The submarine USS SS-1 (SS-105) launches a Martin MS-1 seaplane, marking the first flight of a submarine-launched aircraft. 1950: Gen. Douglas MacArthur begins a heavy air campaign against North Korean targets, including bridges over the Yalu River, violating orders from the Joint Chiefs of Staff that restricted operations within five miles of North Korea’s border with China. 2009: U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan kills 13 and wounds another 29 soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood, Texas in the deadliest shooting on a U.S. military installation. Medal of Honor: On this day in 1966, PFC John F. Baker, Jr. attacked and destroyed several enemy bunkers, killed several snipers, and rescued eight fellow soldiers. Capt. Robert F. Foley, Baker’s company commander, earned the Medal of Honor during the same engagement. Adapted (and abridged) in part from “This Week in US Military History” by W. Thomas Smith Jr. at Human Events. For more “This day in U.S. military history” content, visit the Center for American Military History Continue reading

1941: Although the United States has not yet entered the war, a German submarine torpedoes and sinks the destroyer USS Reuben James (DD-245), which was providing convoy escort. 115 sailors perish in the first sinking of a U.S. warship in World War II. 1943: Lt. Hugh D. O'Neill, flying at night in a specially modified F4U Corsair, shoots down a Japanese Betty bomber over Vella Lavella, scoring the first kill for the radar-equipped night fighters. 1968: Five days before the elections, Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson ends Operation Rolling Thunder, the bombing campaign against North Vietnam. Over three-and-a-half years, 864,000 tons of bombs fell on the Communist nation - more tonnage dropped than either the Korean War or the Pacific Theater of World War II. Hundreds of U.S. planes and aircrew are shot down. 1971: Saigon begins releasing the first of around 3,000 Viet Cong prisoners of war. American POWs won't be released until Feb. 12, 1973. 1976: The Air Force's E-3A Sentry airborne warning and control systems (AWACS) aircraft makes its first flight. Medal of Honor: On this day in 1972, Navy Petty Officer Michael E. Thornton became the only Medal of Honor recipient to save the life of another Medal of Honor recipient, Lt. Thomas Norris, who was believed to be dead. Thornton fought and ran through a harrowing field of fire to rescue his officer, then swam out to sea for four hours before being rescued while holding two incapacitated teammates - even though he himself was wounded multiple times. Image of the Day: Elvis and a bazooka For more "This day in U.S. military history" content, visit the Center for American Military History Continue reading

1918: Famous World War I flying ace Capt. Eddie Rickenbacker shoots down his 26th - and final - enemy aircraft over Rémonville, France. 1940: The Royal Air Force's First Eagle Squadron, consisting of volunteer pilots from the United States, becomes operational. Thousands of Americans would apply, but only 244 were chosen for service during the early days of World War II. 1950: Gen. Douglas A. MacArthur orders U.S. forces north of the 38th Parallel to "mop up" the North Korean Army. 1954: The last racially segregated unit in the U.S. Armed Forces is abolished; the military is officially desegregated. Medal of Honor: On this day in 1944, Pvt. Wilburn K. Ross almost single-handedly fought off a German attack that devastated his company. Pvt. Ross killed or wounded dozens of enemy soldiers, forcing their retreat Image of the Day: Warthog flies over Egypt Find history for other dates at the Center for American Military History Continue reading

1909: U.S. Army Lt. (future brig. gen.) Frederick Erastus Humphreys​ becomes the first Army aviator to solo in a heavier-than-air craft – the Wright Flyer​ – following three hours of instruction by Wilbur Wright​. 1922: Lt. Commander Godfrey de Courcelles Chevalier makes the first aircraft-carrier landing on the deck of America’s first carrier, USS Langley (CV-1). 1942: Japanese carrier-based aircraft sink the carrier USS Hornet, leaving only one operational carrier in the Pacific. The Battle of Santa Cruz is a pyrrhic victory for the Japanese, however, as their carrier pilots were decimated in the attack and can no longer conduct attacks on U.S. forces at Guadalcanal. 1944: The Battle of Leyte Gulf – the last great naval battle of the Pacific during World War II​ – ends in a lopsided victory for the Americans. An epic three-day, four-part engagement fought in defense of the U.S. effort to retake the Philippines, the battle has all but ended the Japanese Navy’s ability to fight as a substantive fleet. It is also history's last sea battle in which battleships engage one another in pitched battle. All total, 282 U.S. and Japanese warships and 190,000 sailors on both sides have been directly involved in the battle. Four Japanese carriers, three battleships, six cruisers, 14 destroyers, and nearly 10,000 sailors have been sent to the bottom. The U.S. Navy has suffered the loss of three carriers, three destroyers, and one submarine. 1950: The First Marine Division lands at Wonsan, Korea and moves north toward the Yalu River. In a month, they will be attacked by 10 Chinese divisions and have to fight their way out of the Chosin Reservoir. Meanwhile, Republic of Korean (South Korea) forces arrive at the Yalu River and learn that two entire Chinese Armies have already crossed into Korea. 1966: A magnesium parachute flare ignites aboard the aircraft carrier USS Oriskany (CV-34) off the coast of Vietnam, igniting the worst ship-board fire since World War II. 44 sailors perish in the blaze. 1968: An estimated four battalions of North Vietnamese soldiers attempt to overrun Fire Support Base Julie near the Cambodian border. Supported by dozens of B-52 strikes, the defenders manage to repel the attack. Medal of Honor: On this day in 1942, Marine platoon sergeant Mitchell Paige single-handedly fought off waves of Japanese soldiers on Guadalcanal when all his men were killed or wounded. When reinforcements arrived, Paige led a bayonet charge that drove off the enemy. Image of the Day: The first carrier landing (see above) Adapted (and abridged) in part from "This Week in US Military History" by W. Thomas Smith Jr. at Human Events. Continue reading

1812: The frigate USS United States under the command of Capt. (future commodore) Stephen Decatur – hero of Tripoli and said to be the U.S. Navy’s own Lord Nelson – captures the Royal Navy frigate HMS Macedonian under the command of Capt. John Carden in a brisk fight several hundred miles off the Azores. 1942: On Guadalcanal, Japanese forces launch a series of full-frontal assaults to retake Henderson Field. The defending Marines – led by Lt. Col. Lewis “Chesty” Puller – and soldiers kill upwards of 3,000 Japanese troops at the cost of only 80 Americans. 1944: During the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the escort carrier USS St. Lo (CVE-63) becomes the first major warship to be sunk by Japanese kamikaze pilots. By war’s end, kamikaze attacks would sink 34 U.S. ships. Torpedoes from the destroyer USS Melvin (DD-680) sink the Japanese battleship Fusō, considered to be the largest warship to go down with all hands during World War II. Rear. Adm. Jesse Oldendorf’s 7th Fleet Support Group, consisting of several battleships sunk or damaged during Pearl Harbor, engage and sink the battleship Yamashiro, marking the last battleship-versus-battleship engagement in history. Elsewhere in the gulf, three Japanese destroyers are sunk at the cost of one U.S. escort carrier, two destroyers, and a destroyer escort. Aircraft from the U.S. 3rd Fleet, commanded by Adm. Bill Halsey, sink the Japanese aircraft carrier Zuikaku, the last surviving carrier that struck Pearl Harbor. Also headed for the bottom are two more light carriers and a destroyer. Two more ships – including another light carrier – are crippled. Later that day, naval gunfire and torpedoes will claim another Japanese light carrier, two destroyers, and a light cruiser. The Battle for Leyte Gulf is effectively over. 1950: Well over 200,000 Chinese Communist troops attack UN forces in their first assault of the Korean War. The Chinese force withdraws to the mountains and when they attack again one month later, they will drive the UN all the way to the southern tip of the Korean peninsula. 1972: Pres. Richard Nixon suspends the bombing campaign against North Vietnam following secret peace talks in Paris. A cease fire will be signed in just three months. 1983: In the largest military operation since Vietnam, nearly 2,000 U.S. troops land on the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada to secure American citizens and topple the Marxist regime. Medal of Honor: On this day in 1942, Sgt. John Basilone became a Marine legend, fighting off wave after wave of Japanese soldiers on Guadalcanal despite being incredibly outnumbered. Continue reading

I posted this picture back in January, and today, a reader named Larry Flanagan tells us that he is the soldier in the picture. His comment (from my website UNTO THE BREACH - link below): The soldier in the picture is me. My name is Larry Flanagan, I was with the 1st. bde LRRPs / K75 Rangers. I was the team leader of a four man team doing a five day mission in a place called VC Valley in the central highlands. It was in January 1969, we set up am ambush where a large trail crossed a small stream. On the second day early in the morning a group of wild water buffalo came down the stream to drink. Read the rest of this post » Continue reading

Although a fan of counterinsurgency (COIN) in certain cases, I have publicly opposed the population-centric model of COIN utilized in Afghanistan for several years. But I am safe at home and feel that we should defer to those whose lives depend on how effective our warfighting doctrine is. I came across a wonderfully written letter by a former infantry commander, who is also an officially trained military historian, to the Secretary of the Army detailing why we are failing in Afghanistan. I understand many folks in the military still support COIN in Afghanistan, but I doubt I am the only one that thinks something is wrong when the world's most advanced military is 11 years into a war with an illiterate enemy that has no armor, navy, or air force. An excerpt from my latest piece at The US Report: Where did we go wrong? [Col. Harry D.]Tunnell said it's mainly because our senior leaders, who have less combat maneuver experience now than perhaps at any time in U.S. military history, are "unwilling to conduct operations that reflect sound military art and science." Years ago, we abandoned our counterterrorism efforts in favor of counterinsurgency (COIN), a nebulous, and primarily political strategy aimed at protecting populations and addressing grievances. Killing the enemy and breaking their will to fight becomes secondary, and success hinges on an incredibly corrupt Afghan government. Tunnell says that COIN "consists of musings from amateurs, contractors, plagiarized journal articles, etc." and has contributed to "needless American casualties": COIN has become such a restrictive dogma that it cannot be questioned; any professional discussion about its strengths and weaknesses is discouraged. It has reached such a crisis that those who employ other Army doctrinal concepts do so at their own professional peril because they will be subject to censure for not adhering to COIN. This has created a dysfunctional and toxic leadership environment throughout our Army which has resulted in poor organization, unrealistic training, and indecisive battlefield performance. Our military exists to protect American citizens, not Afghans. And if the Afghan people have grievances, that is their business – not ours. Our business should be to kill the terrorists that seek to kill Americans and then come home. The moment we quit doing that was the moment we abandoned our own best interests: Our potential for greater coalition casualties does not have to be inevitable, but due to our flawed approach to operations we wind up enabling our enemy. The population-centric approach which places the population as the center of gravity is applied to the point of absurdity. The enemy is entrenching himself among the civilian population as we cede to him territory and lines of communication. […] A gross lack of concern for subordinates manifests in guidance that "zero" civilian casualties are acceptable and coalition soldiers may have to be killed rather than defend themselves against a potential threat and risk being wrong and possibly resulting in injury or death of civilians... The Battle of Ganjgal, in which Marine Sgt. Dakota Meyer received the Medal of Honor, exemplifies Col. Tunnell's point that COIN and restrictive rules of engagement result in needless American casualties: As part of our formula for success we place a remarkable amount of emphasis on the Afghan Security Forces without understanding the men who make up that force. It is very unlikely that we will be able to provide Afghans with a level of education and training to make them an independent and reliable force that can deny Afghanistan as a safe haven to terrorists. What is troubling is that the White House and Pentagon no doubt knew this from the beginning. But the political leadership decided that the narrative was more important than the reality, so we would train the Afghan army and police for the sake of training – you don't question COIN. Now we are approaching the point that the Afghans we train are as deadly to our troops as the Afghans we fight. Here's what we can look forward to when our combat forces withdraw in 2014: The Soviet Union's attempt to create a professional independent military collapsed as soon as the Soviets withdrew, which is what contributed to the ascendancy of the Taliban. This should provide an obviously cautionary tale. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. While our tactics, technology, and intentions may differ from the Soviets, the military that we spent countless billions of dollars creating will fall apart just as easily. Why? Because the Afghan people aren't buying what either the US or the USSR has to offer. Politics of Afghans and Taliban The bottom line is that our political leaders failed to understand the Afghan people. [A] main COIN assumption is that the population does not want what the Taliban have to offer. This is an unbelievably flawed assumption - it might be more correct to assess that the population does not like how the Taliban deliver but the incontrovertible fact is that the Taliban are Pashtu and their cultural norms are the same as any other Pashtu male.[…] The most frequently ignored fact is that the average farmer in southern Afghanistan will appreciate far more what Mullah Omar is proposing than what we are with COIN, he just does not respond to how Mullah Omar is peddling his ideas. We also must not lose sight of the fact that no matter how much our military has weakened the insurgents, we are leaving and the Taliban are staying. The Afghan people know this better than anyone, and their lives will be decided by the Taliban. Americans may find the Taliban's treatment of women and little boys to be abominable, but that is their culture. The job of enforcing human rights across the globe does not fall to the United States military. Instead of hopelessly trying to win hearts and minds in obscure countries, our military should be killing the terrorists that threaten our security and then come home. Read the full article at... Continue reading

After hearing weeks of various perspectives on the book No Easy Day, including an interesting perspective from Froggy, I decided to see for myself whether the book is worth reading. Accuracy is essential when it comes to history, and we live in a time where we have a self-serving president and an administration that has no problems with bending the truth - or rewriting it altogether - to their political benefit. That said, I would be far more likely to trust the man who saw it firsthand than I would to trust Washington or Hollywood. Since I am not a former teammate of the author's, I am coming from the perspective that information that isn't damaging to our military or national security belongs to the American people. Therefore, we definitely deserve to know the truth about the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, one of the most important military operations in our nation's history. From my review at The US Report: Although No Easy Day has all the detail and excitement of a Tom Clancy novel, from the near-fatal helicopter crash on insertion to evading the Pakistani air force on the return trip, the author avoids disclosing anything that could be used by the enemy. The Pentagon claims the author violated nondisclosure agreements and has threatened legal action. Mr. Bissonnette and his lawyers assert that he did not. That is for the lawyers to decide. Members of the SEAL community have spoken out about the author's decision to publish, saying he violated the SEAL Ethos: “I do not advertise the nature of my work, nor seek recognition for my actions...” I am not a SEAL, so I leave that to Bissonnette and his former teammates to work out. What I can say is that No Easy Day is required reading. Considering the controversy surrounding this book's release, I was expecting the book to contain a real dressing-down of the Obama administration and perhaps the Pentagon. However, Mr. Bissonnette kept it professional, completely avoiding politics and kept the focus solely on the mission. Read the full review at The US Report. Continue reading