Pakistan -- The New Afghanistan

Before I get on my rant about the attacks in Mumbai, India, I'd like to make quick mention of a story out of Afghanistan a few weeks back that I'm willing to bet you may not have heard about.

On November 12th, a pair of Taliban insurgents took it upon themselves to mount up on a motorcycle and attack young Afghan girls walking to school. Their weapon of choice? A water pistol filled with battery acid. The attackers squirted the acid into the faces of several girls, burning them horribly. Two of the girls are now blind.

Why would the Taliban attack defenseless young schoolgirls? Are they a threat to Islam? No, they attacked because in the Taliban's Islamic ideology, women should not be educated and should not go to school. When the Taliban ruled most of Afghanistan before the U.S. ran them out, the Taliban forbade the education of women. This is yet another shining example of what Islam holds in store for everyone. Ladies, how do you feel about stopping the war against Islamic extremism now? Still think war is stupid? If the extremists get their way, you will have no rights whatsoever. Think about that the next time you decide to criticize our war against terrorism. If you'd rather let the bad guys win and conquer the world, then by all means support a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops from our battlefronts, and bring 'em home. It'll only be a matter of time until governments all around the world begin to fall to Islam. It will start with Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan. From there it will spread as the movement gains momentum. Pretty soon, most of the middle east will be ruled by not only Islamic regimes, but Islamic extremist regimes. Once that happens, you may just see Osama Bin Laden himself come out of hiding and declare himself Caliph. And with Pakistan under his thumb, he'd have nuclear weapons at his disposal. A cheerful thought, no?

I'm happy to report that 10 Taliban militants were arrested in connection with this attack. They confessed to receiving payment of 100,000 Pakistani rupees ($1265) from a Taliban official in Pakistan. It should be clear to you that Pakistan is fast becoming the world's premiere sponsor of Islamic terrorism. If you don't believe that, read on.

Okay, now on to the big development. If you've paid attention to the news in the last few days, you've likely heard about the terror attacks in the city of Mumbai, India. If you've chosen to ignore these unpleasant news stories in favor of feasting on turkey and shopping for deals at Wal-Mart, shame on you. These attacks hold implications for us all. Oh, and five Americans are dead over there. Let me bring you up to speed.

A group of somewhere between 12 to 24 terrorists launched a series of simultaneous, coordinated attacks on the city of Mumbai beginning Wednesday evening. The attacks included random shootings, grenade attacks, and even a reported car bombing (in the form of an explosives-laden taxi). As of this writing, the death tolls are about 183 confirmed dead, with something around 295 people injured. The terrorists attacked tourist spots, including hotels and cafes. A train station was also attacked. News reports indicate that around 9 to 10 different sites around Mumbai were all attacked nearly simulaneously.

The remorseless attackers indiscriminately sprayed down people anywhere and everywhere they could. It was rumored that some attackers were even taking people hostage, specifically seeking out Westerners for capture or execution. A few gunmen managed to hole themselves up in the Taj Mahal Hotel, and were finally gunned down today (Saturday). Reports indicate that the attackers were very well organized, and even had a terror "command center" set up in one of the hotel rooms, from which they could coordinate their attacks. They appear to have initially penetrated the city with their weapons by inflatable boats, indicating that the attacks were launched by sea. A drifting trawler with a few abandoned cell phones was found today, and the cell phones had last made calls to Pakistan.

Now, while I'm certainly no terrorism expert, I consider myself better informed than the average American citizen. And in my informed opinion, this attack in Mumbai bears all the hallmarks of an Al Qaeda driven attack. It's a shift in their tactics, to be sure. They've historically used suicide bombers in pairs for most of their attacks on soft targets. But one thing stands out: the simultaneous attack of multiple targets. It should be noted that even 9/11 was a shift in tactics for Al Qaeda, with no explosives being used whatsoever. So it's clear that Al Qaeda is willing to change things up from time to time, just to give themselves better odds at succeeding. It is certainly plausible that they've tried a different tactic in Mumbai, and it's clear they were successful in their strategy. The Indian commandos that killed off the last three attackers were very quick to point out that the attackers had been well-trained in the use of their guns and in the use of grenades.

It's interesting that Pakistan is denying any involvement in the incident. I'd like to believe that the government is telling the truth, and that this was the work of non-sanctioned terror groups. But my suspicion is that while Pakistan tells the world they're combating Islamic extremism, they're quietly supporting it behind the scenes. This is why they've not turned up Osama Bin Laden or Ayman Al-Zawahiri. It's because they fear the public backlash of capturing or killing the two men with whom most of the Pakistani public identifies. If Pakistan's government or military were to kill or capture Al Qaeda leaders, the population of Pakistan would brim over with violence against the fragile government, possibly overthrowing it. Then we'd have a real crisis, with extremists in control of nuclear weapons and a grudge to bear.

So again, my peacemongering anti-war compatriots, I ask you the crucial question: why do you oppose the war on terror? Why do you feel that we should not fight this battle? Do you think that if we hunker down and hide, that the bad people in the world will just "go away"? The people of India were not so lucky. Neither were the innocent schoolgirls in Afghanistan. The forces of evil are alive and well, and they're planning to kill you. So you think we should just wait it out and let them come? Maybe they won't bother you if you keep your mouths shut. Is that what you think?

I find it interesting that people ARE reading these blogs -- I check the number of visits from time to time. But the only people who speak up are the ones that see eye-to-eye with me on these matters, leaving me words of encouragement. For all the war-protesting friends that I have, not one has responded with a counterpoint to my blogs. Are you afraid to engage me in debate? Are you afraid of a rift in our relations? Or could it be that you realize that your petty arguments against war don't hold any water?

I encourage you who disagree with me to comment on my blogs. I'd love to hear what you have to say. I suspect the reason I've not heard from you is because your points of view aren't capable of being defended, but it would be interesting to hear you try. Let's see what happens.

I refuse to stop ranting because I can clearly see the threat. I read about it every day. I don't ignore it. Those of you who oppose our war efforts have obviously forgotten 9/11, and have chosen to ignore the looming threat. I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving meal, and I hope you got those killer deals at Wal-Mart before anyone else did.

While the Indians are cleaning up corpses, blood, and body parts this weekend, I hope you and yours have a happy and blessed holiday season. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Pirates of the Gulf Of Aden, Part II

Okay, so it appears that the Indian frigate may have been a bit hasty when shooting down the supposed "pirate mothership" in the Gulf of Aden. Apparently, there WERE pirates aboard the ship -- the frigate reports that it came under fire from pirates on the deck of the Thai trawler. What the Indian frigate didn't realize is that the trawler had just been siezed by the pirates, and there were still innocent crew members aboard.

One of those crewmembers, a Cambodian, was found adrift but still alive in the water six days later. He was rescued by a passing ship and delivered to a hospital in Yemen. There were apparently 14 crew members aboard the trawler, and they all likely perished along with the pirates, save for the one crew member that was rescued.

One interesting thing to note is that the vessel was supposed to have been a fishing trawler delivering fishing equipment from Oman to Yemen when it was seized. The pirates approached and siezed the trawler in two speedboats, which were subsequently in tow behind the trawler when the Indian frigate encountered it. The Indians who fired upon the trawler reported that the vessel was laden with ammunition. I'm presuming they were able to ascertain this by the tell-tale explosions that would follow an attack by gunfire. I have to ask this burning question: how would a fishing vessel full of fishing equipment also manage to be laden with explosives or ammunition? I find it hard to believe that the pirates would have had the capacity or the time to unload significant quantities of ammunition or explosives off their speedboats. But the Indians claim there were secondary explosions on the vessel.

I can't help but wonder if the supposed "fishing trawler" was truly a fishing trawler at all. Hey, I wasn't there, and I can only go by secondhand reporting from those at the scene, but I have to wonder what kind of fishing equipment could possibly be so explosive. Were the Yemenis who were receiving the shipment going to fish with guns or explosives? That's been done before, but I suspect that more traditional fishing methods are likely in use in Yemen. In other words, nets.

Perhaps the Indians hit a fuel storage tank or something, but I would expect Indian sailors to know the difference between a fuel explosion and a secondary ammunition explosion. Either way, I'm still happy with a group of pirates having been killed. It's a horrible shame that innocent people had to perish also, but I don't begrudge the Indian frigate for defending itself when it came under fire. The trawler's pirates were reportedly armed with RPGs, which could have done some serious damage to the Indian frigate or its sailors. They were justified in defending themselves.

This is my gripe with terrorists, thugs, and pirates: they're indiscriminate. They'll put anyone in harm's way, with no second thought. I can't correlate that the pirates were also Islamic extremists, but with Somalia being a predominantly Muslim place, it stands to reason that they may have been. Regardless, Somalia is a horrible and lawless place, and Islamists are continuously making headway at taking control of the land. It would not surprise me to learn that their movement is funded by the ransom successes of the pirates in the Gulf of Aden.

Keep coming, pirates. The nations of the world are responding and sending warships to meet your challenge, including the Russians. Your reign of piracy will hopefully be short lived, as will you and your ilk. I look forward to reading more about counterattacks on pirate vessels in the Gulf of Aden.

Pirates Of The Gulf Of Aden

Ahh, Somalia.

I type that mockingly, spoofing the sentimentally uttered phrase, "Ahh, Venice," which was spoken by Indiana Jones in The Last Crusade, just before he proceeded to bed the hot Nazi chick.

I look upon Somalia, and cannot help but feel the need to carpet bomb the place to mere fragments. The world would be better off for it. If you've followed the saga of events in Somalia, none of it has ever been good in the time that I've been loosely familiar with the "place". It cannot really be called a country, since they haven't had a true government there for many years. It's a lawless land of criminals, thugs, warlords, bandits, and lately, pirates. Yes, I said pirates.

These are not the swashbuckling "hip" pirates like Johnny Depp attempted to portray in his movies. Rather, these modern day pirates are a bunch of low lifes with AK-47s and RPGs. They've been so long without a government, and hence, basic needs like food and medicine, that they've had to resort to cruising out into the Gulf of Aden to see what they can pillage from passing cargo ships. Things got worse when they started actually commandeering the vessels, taking them back to shore, and demanding huge ransoms for the innocent crew members aboard. The sad thing is, because these poor hostages are civilians, their host nations are readily negotiating and paying the ransoms for the safe return of their people. These successful piracy raids have emboldened the pirates into making ever more daring attempts to hijack even bigger targets. Within the last week, they managed to snag a huge Saudi-owned oil supertanker full of oil. This was their biggest target to date.

I read an article about the pirates last week, and it appears that the piracy business has actually become a "boon" to the previously non-existent Somali economy along the coast, with merchants and businesses being set up to support the pirates and their captive hostages. Upon receipt of their ransoms, the pirates are setting themselves up in huge homes with posh amenities, something unheard of in Somalia in recent times.

Various nations (including the U.S.) have begun deploying warships to patrol the trade corridor near the Somali coast to thwart the piracy. A great deal of major cargo shipping passes through that area to get to and from the Persian Gulf. With so much rampant piracy beginning to threaten international commerce, there is huge concern around the world about the worsening problem.

I was thrilled to death to see that an Indian warship came under threat by what was considered the pirates' "mothership", and the Indian ship not only fired upon the vessel, but managed to set it ablaze and sink it. Strike up one solid victory for the good guys. This single counterattack will certainly not disuade the pirates, but after several dozen of their precious pirate vessels get smoked by superior firepower, they'll be much less capable of conducting their raids. I can't wait until the U.S. Navy gets a few sweet kills out there. It's only a matter of time, at the rate the pirates keep attacking.

Now let's remember the make-up of the Somali people. Think "Black Hawk Down". The majority of them are Muslim extremists and thugs. Sure, there are likely countless "good" people among them -- those are the ones that keep getting killed or starved to death by the Islamists trying to rule the country. These civilians are being killed off by the thousands in the Islamist insurgency in and around Mogadishu. The ones that haven't been killed off have been forced to flee the capital and take refuge elsewhere, if such a thing as "refuge" can even be found in a lawless land like Somalia.

The Islamists trying to conquer the country have become extremely cocky and brazened lately, conducting public floggings and news conferences (I'm presuming not at the same time, but possibly so -- what do they care?). This just goes to show you what Islam will bring us all if we don't step up to the plate and quash it now. The animals trying to conquer Somalia are undoubtedly fighting for their cause to establish an Islamic caliphate, where Sharia law reigns supreme. This is, of course, for the "benefit" of the people. I fail to see how slaughtering thousands of innocent people, along with publicly flogging the living, will benefit the people. This is the myth of the "glory" that Islam supposedly brings to all those who embrace it. The only thing I ever see Islam bring upon a society is ill-will, torture, murder, and misery. I don't want that in my country -- we've got enough internal problems without letting Islam take a foothold here. At least I don't have to worry about driving to work and having an IED explode and splatter me across the nearest billboard. I don't have to worry about going to the mall and having some suicide-vest laden fanatic blowing everyone in the mall to shreds of flesh. I don't have to worry about 747 airliners flying into buildings here, or janjaweed killers roaming in on horseback to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing.

All things considered, I think we have it pretty good here in the states. Why, then, is it so incomprehensible to the American people that we are at war with Islamic terrorism? Do we Americans have such a short attention span that we don't remember why we opted to combat Islamic extremism? Why are we now so averse to protecting our way of life? Do we feel it's no longer worth protecting? Are we now willing to accept Islamic pressure, coercion, and absolutism? Are we supposed to just say that this fight isn't worth the body count, and that we should just respect Islam for the "religion of peace" that it purports to be, when all signs point to it being everything contrary to that?

I was having some drinks at the bar with friends recently, and one member of the group was talking a bit about world events, and expressed that he could not fathom why the U.S.A. always had to stick its nose in other countries' business. He could not understand why our troops had to go overseas and fight. He felt that we should pull all troops back home and set up a better defense here in the homeland.

This mindset boggles the hell out of me. He's entitled to his opinion, of course. But I guess I fail to see how we should just hunker down and hope that nothing bad will happen to us. That's the mode we were in when 9/11 happened. Looks like our method of staying out of other peoples' business didn't work too well. We lost nearly 3,000 for thinking that way the last time. It was then that we decided to act, and not stand idly by when there was a looming threat on the horizon. We're still fighting that battle to this day, and we will be for some time to come. That is, if we are brave and stolid enough to stick with it. It appears that now that we've lost thousands of our brave young men and women who volunteered to serve their country, the very country they've died to protect has decided that the fight was all for nothing and that we should just hunker down and hide. I can't think of a bigger insult, slight, or disrespect for our fallen soldiers than to change our minds a few years later and in effect call their sacrifice completely worthless. Shame on any American who feels this fight is senseless. This is the most important fight we currently face. You can't win it by hiding under rocks at home. What kind of strategy is that?

Islam is not a religion anymore. It's a movement. It's an anti-American movement. Islam has no room for America in its grand plan. Islam is all about establishing a caliphate, where Sharia law reigns supreme. There will be no American Constitution when Islam wins. There will be no freedoms. There will be only infighting, suicide-bombings, murder, genocide, oppression, and all of the horrible things that we see Islam providing to the world every day. Somalia is a prime example of what Islam holds in store for you. Just read the news, and you'll see the future that Islam will surely bring you. It's not pretty. I put forth that nearly every major conflict taking place in the world today has Islamic assholes on one side, and somebody (anybody) else on the other. Islam gets along with no one, because it tolerates no one.

Why are we at war? What a foolish question. The answer is right in front of our noses. You need only pay attention to the growing threat overseas. It's not getting any better, and I for one feel MUCH better knowing that our armed forces are over there battling extremism wherever they can find it. Their sacrifice over there guarantees our way of life here. THAT is why we fight. THAT is why we fight OVER THERE: so we don't have to OVER HERE.

I would have thought that was pretty obvious. I guess I was wrong.

Some Things Are Better Left Unsaid

In a most impressive lack of insight, the current president of Pakistan, President Asif Ali Zardari, made a plea to president-elect Obama to halt the U.S. military's missile strikes on enemy positions inside Pakistan. Now sure, I understand that Zardari is trying to stop us from fueling the flames of extremism in his nation. It makes for unpleasantness in Pakistan. I say "tough shit", but who am I to judge, right?

Anyway, read his statement and think about it for a second, because he's missing a painfully obvious truth when he makes this statement:

Zardari said, "We feel that the strikes are an intrusion on our sovereignty, which are not appreciated by the people at large, and the first aspect of this war is to win the hearts and mind of the people."

Funny, but it should be pretty obvious to the insightful Mr. Zardari that the hearts and minds of his precious "people at large" belong, and have always belonged, to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. More importantly, the hearts and minds of his own ISI (the Pakistani equivalent of our CIA), belong to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Whether or not we conduct missile strikes on Al Qaeda positions or not will never change the mindset of the "people at large" in Pakistan. That being said, I don't give a flying fuck what the president of Pakistan wants, because the hearts and minds of his people are ALREADY hell-bent on killing anyone not aligned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. And that means you and I. I say keep the missiles flying.

I had far more respect for Zardari's late wife, Bennazir Bhutto. It's a shame she was assassinated (again, by Al Qaeda agents). She would have made a far wiser president than her dumbass husband. But I guess I should be nice and practice what I preach about the burden of being a president. Our president has the privilege and the burden of knowing things that you and I do not. However, I'm not sure that Zardari knows diddly squat about his own constituency....

In other news, I was told by a co-worker today that Barack Obama's website, Change.gov , had all kinds of information on Obama's plans for the future if he were elected president. I was told that each issue on the website was thoroughly written up with oodles of information about Obama's thoughts, ideas, and direction. Now that he's been elected and brought up to speed on things by intelligence briefings and by meeting with President Bush, I'm told that all of that valuable information has been pulled from the website. Why would that be, Mr. President-elect? Could it be that now that you've been grounded in reality by facts, you suddenly realized that you cannot possibly move forward with any of the plans you had promised the American people? I confess that I had not seen the website before the change, but I went there tonight and could not find a list of issues or details about each of them. I did find a button called "Agenda" which includes a whopping three sentences or so that summarize the issues he will face. No mention of his actual plan or direction, though. I presume he doesn't want to be held accountable for his upcoming failures by having any kind of written documentation outlining his original agenda.

All that talk of "change", and it seems the only thing that's changed is the removal of his ideas from the website. I wonder how that bodes for his upcoming presidency....

I am encouraged, however, by the fact that Obama claims he will take the fight against Al Qaeda into Pakistan if necessary. How convenient of a promise that was; we're already doing it, dude.

Oh, and then there's his promise of a phased approach to bring our troops home from Iraq. How convenient of a promise that was; we're already doing it, dude.

So if I'm seeing this right, Obama's promising what Bush is already delivering. Fascinating.

The Burden of Presidency

Today marks the first day that Barack Obama got his first national intelligence briefing as he begins to learn what it means to be a president. Damn I wish I could've been a fly on the wall for that first briefing. I'd have loved to have seen the look on Obama's face when he began to learn about the harsh realities of the world that he never knew about.

That's the thing about American presidents (and probably most other figureheads around the world, too). Presidents have the privilege and the BURDEN of discovering and knowing things about this world that you and I will never know. I can't even begin to fathom what a shock that must be to any first time president. I heard it secondhand today that someone close to our last two presidents personally witnessed that when each of them first heard their initial national intelligence briefing, they each left the room white-knuckled and rather pale. I can totally understand that.

It is for that reason that I generally give our presidents a more forgiving margin of error when they perform their duties. They have to bear the burden of knowing things that they cannot always share with the public. They know more than any of us ever could about the horrors of this world. It is through that information, that filter, that they see the world, and through which they must make impossible decisions. I don't envy them that burden. It has to be a LOT to bear.

I had a tit-for-tat political conversation with one of my closest friends via telephone yesterday. He's a fairly well-read individual, and certainly intelligent. In the years that followed 9/11 and the start of the Iraq conflict, he and I became very aware that we were on polar opposite sides of the fence with regard to our government, and more specifically, our president. I realize that most folks in this nation despise Bush, but I don't think I've ever seen such a focused crusade against George Bush as I have seen from my friend. It's one thing to disapprove of the president's performance. But my friend has taken it to such an extreme that he somehow has managed to extrapolate literally EVERY SINGLE ONE of the world's ills on George Bush. It's actually laughable. Bush has faults; this I will concede. But to take any and every negative topic or headline and blame it squarely on George Bush is ridiculous. Even you virulent Bush haters probably agree with that statement.

Sometime during 2006, my friend began sharing some e-mails with me that he occasionally circulates to his circle of friends. The e-mails were political in nature, and it was sort of a round-table discussion e-mail exchange where a certain topic would be presented, and each person on the mailing list would reply to the group and would put their two cents in on the matter, with point and counterpoint. Such an activity is certainly a risky venture, particularly among a group of friends. Politics is just one of those things that is very difficult to discuss politely. Someone will always get their feathers ruffled sooner or later. The same thing applies to religion. This is why the old adage about never discussing religion or politics in mixed company is such a valid one. Nothing could be more true.

Well, I don't remember the specifics of it now, but after one or two of these round robin e-mail exchanges, I began to boldly weigh in. Knowing that I solidly supported Bush's policy of engaging our terrorist enemies anywhere and everywhere, my good friend launched into countless attacks on Bush just for the sake of bashing Bush. It is positively fascinating to listen to this guy take any given problem in the world, and blame it squarely on George Bush. He's made it into something of an art form. I swear, if somebody's neighborhood cat got run over down the street from him, he'd find a way to link it to George Bush. "If Bush wasn't spending billions of dollars on the Iraq war on a daily basis, maybe the town could have afforded more animal control staffers to keep stray cats off the roads." I mean, he's literally THAT bad.

Anyway, after some heated e-mail exchanges, I eventually got tired of hearing how George Bush was the anti-Christ and the worst thing to happen to humanity since Adolf Hitler. It was at that point that I politely asked that he and I never again discuss politics, because it was beginning to take a toll on our valued friendship (at least in my eyes). I'm sorry folks, but comparing Bush to Hitler is ludicrous. I don't hold Bush on a pedestal, but I don't fault the guy for trying to protect you and me. I, for one, commend him for making an effort to protect our nation. The guy was only in office for part of a year when 9/11 happened, and it changed everything. Bush's presidency, as I said in my previous blog, was and always will be defined by 9/11. Who knows how things would have been different if 9/11 never happened? I suspect that Bush would have been able to carry out a very average presidency if 9/11 never happened. Nothing great, nothing terrible, but probably pretty average. But he really didn't have much opportunity to carry out an average presidency. 9/11 changed everything. The events of that day forced Bush to make decisions he never thought he'd ever have to make. They were hard decisions, but he did what I would have done: he took the fight to the enemy, wherever the enemy might be hiding.

After the U.S. military pounded the Taliban to dust and chased the rest into Pakistan, Bush may have been able to gather himself enough to attempt to tackle other issues (both foreign and domestic), but everything else was very secondary to the effect of 9/11. No other single issue could possibly matter as much as our safety and security in this nation. It is with that mindset that Bush carried out his duties as president. Such a mindset inevitably leads to very unpopular choices, decisions, hardships, and sacrifices. But he remained steadfast in his effort to protect us all, and to his credit, post 9/11 we have not seen a single successful terror attack in THIS nation during his presidency. Al Qaeda has had to resort to attacking softer foreign targets because they've been unable to muster another attack on our homeland. Numerous terror cells and plots have been broken up and/or disrupted here and abroad, and I think that's a credit to our departing president. He put our military forces and intelligence agencies up to the daunting task of protecting this country, and I feel they've done an excellent job of adapting to the threats that so violently awakened us all on 9/11. Kudos to our armed forces for keeping us safe, and kudos to Bush for having the courage to become unpopular to serve a higher purpose: protecting our lives, liberty, and our way of life.

In light of everything that presidents are expected to endure, it is a wonder to me that they can even sleep at night. And it is no surprise that the last two presidents have departed the Oval Office looking considerably older and more frazzled than they did when they first took office. I suspect Obama will be no exception when his term is up. He won't look anything like he looks now. You probably won't even recognize the man by 2012. Heck, I bet today's national intelligence briefing was enough to turn the man white.

To wrap up my main point, I just want to remind everyone that American presidents know more than you or I will ever know about the immediate and potiential threats that face us all. Obama is now facing the fact that there's probably a lot more going on in the world than he could have ever imagined. I'm not suggesting he was oblivious to the world, but Mr. Hopeful is probably a little dizzy tonight as he digests what he's gotten himself into. I know I would be pretty nauseous.

To Bush bashers everywhere, one cannot blame all the world's problems on Bush. Those who do that are simply copping out. And don't even get me started on all those crackpot conspiracy theorists who claim that Bush "knew" about 9/11 beforehand, or perhaps the double-whammy blame-game attack where they actually posit that George Bush was BEHIND the 9/11 attacks for this purpose or that. I just don't understand people who believe that shit. To each his own, I guess.

When you lambast your nation's president, folks, please take a moment to stop and realize that he probably knows more than you do about any given political topic. It's easy for you and I to armchair quarterback the White House. We all do it. But give your president some leeway when he makes unpopular choices. He knows more than you; that's his job.

The Audacity of Ignorance

Well, it's the next day after the election, and I'm seeing and hearing all the shouts of joy at Obama's victory. I've even mulled things over a bit with a few folks at work, and I'm also seeing responses online, some in direct response to my blog yesterday.

The first thing I'd like to point out is that Al Qaeda is pleased with your choice, Obama supporters. There's nothing like giving our enemy "hope". Well done to all of you. The reason our enemies are so hopeful is because now the heat will be removed for them. They won't have anyone in their faces to keep them in check. As I pointed out a few blogs back, one of Al Qaeda's upper lieutenants openly voiced "hope" just prior to election day that the Republican party would suffer a humiliating defeat. This point alone confirms what I've been bitching about all along. They were hoping for that defeat because they knew damn well that it would make life for the average terrorist much easier. Now they can regroup and begin figuring out ways to get out of their caves and back into our world where they can make a real impact.

The other thing this election confirms for me is how complacent this country has become, even in the wake of September 11th. That horrible day has been essentially forgotten entirely. And it's worth noting that since we're now seven years removed from 9/11/01, most of the very young voters that rallied for Obama this year have sketchy (or few) memories of 9/11/01. If I'm doing my math right, the youngest of our eligible voters this year would have been about age 11 in 2001. Think back to when you were 11 years old. How much attention did you pay to world events? I suspect most 11 year old kids in 2001 saw some buildings falling down, and probably couldn't really grasp what it meant that nearly 3000 people died all at once. In the years that followed, everything that these kids have seen and heard on a regular basis is how the war that "we started" is an atrocity and must end immediately. Funny, but my recollection is that the war on terror was a RESPONSE to 9/11/01. Al Qaeda dealt the first major blow, and we retaliated. But most people these days seem to think that we started this war and that we should quit being an "aggressor nation".

Another thing I'd like to point out is that I personally do not make distinctions between the two battlefronts in the war on terror, Iraq and Afghanistan. Most Americans love to argue that we had no business invading Iraq in 2003. Well I should remind you that Iraq had no business invading Kuwait in 1990. If you want to separate Iraq as not being part of the war on terror, then fine, let's do that for the sake of argument. The war in Iraq did not start with the U.S. invasion in 2003. Rather, it started when Saddam Hussein invaded his benign neighbor Kuwait in 1990 and slaughtered countless innocent Kuwaitis. The outcome of that war was never fully resolved, as Saddam Hussein consistently refused to honor his surrender agreements for nearly 12 years. He flouted U.N. weapon inspectors, and pretty much terrorized his own population without remorse. If you're one of the countless Americans who question why we invaded Iraq because they did not attack us on 9/11, then the continuation of the 1990-1991 Gulf War is your reason. Choose whatever reason you want, because there are many. Want to claim that the U.S. never found the WMDs in 2003 and beyond? I beg to differ. Check out the article from July 7th on CNN.com that shows that a 500 ton stockpile of yellowcake uranium was recently shipped out of Iraq and sent to Canada to be used for energy production. We may have never found Saddam's nuclear weapons; indeed, he may have never succeeded in creating any, although he certainly had a nuclear weapons program underway back in 1990. But the fact that he had stockpiled 500 tons of uranium should be reason enough to have invaded Iraq. It's noteworthy that Iraq has no nuclear power plants, so the only logical conclusion for Iraq stockpiling uranium was for the purpose of eventually enriching it and weaponizing it. It's interesting that the news headline from July 7th really didn't make the evening news. I came across it because I was seeking out news around the world. Heaven forbid that the liberal media openly admit that Bush was in fact correct when he said that Saddam did have the materials to make nuclear weapons. Saddam DID have it. We found it. We quietly shipped it the hell out of there because we didn't dare let Al Qaeda insurgents get hold of it. I'm not making this shit up, people. Look it up for yourselves.

So if you wanna bitch that we had no business invading Iraq, your arguments are unfounded. Chemical and biological weapons were already a fact of life in Iraq, so you can't claim Saddam didn't have those either. Saddam had them. Just because we never found nuclear missiles in Iraq does not mean that Saddam never had the materials to make them, or never had a nuclear weapons program. He certainly had the uranium, and not to make energy. On top of everything else, Saddam had already proven he was a crackpot and sadistic asshole. The records are all there showing his atrocities. Sounds to me like we had every reason to invade Iraq, and then some. Especially in the context of our nation's mindset in the months that followed 9/11. We didn't dare let Saddam take his weapons stash and offer it up to the likes of Al Qaeda. While there was never a direct link between the two ever found, it stands to reason that this was a very real possibility. Should we have sat idly by and waited for that to happen?

Now back to my point about not making distinctions between the fronts in the war on terror, Iraq and Afghanistan. When we went into Afghanistan to wipe out the Taliban, we did so very effectively at the onset. That ragtag bunch of animals didn't stand a chance against our military. The majority of them that survived the initial bombing campaign all made a break for the border with Pakistan, knowing full well that we would not be able to pursue them there. Sadly, Osama Bin Laden was among them. But once we killed or chased off the majority of the Taliban in Afghanistan, there was little more we could do there in terms of combat operations. That's when we began rebuilding the country. The initial victories there allowed our forces to engage terrorism elsewhere. We turned our attention to unfinished business in Iraq, and that's how we ended up there.

While it can be argued that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq initially, it cannot be argued that they are not there now. We have Syria to thank for that. Probably Iran too. We see evidence of Al Qaeda's presence every day on the news (if you're paying attention, that is). At least in Iraq, we can actually engage the enemy when we find them. For the longest time, we had little ability to do that in Afghanistan since most of the insurgents fled and regrouped across the border. It wasn't until the last few years that they've been able to put up noteworthy attacks in Afghanistan again. I agree that now there is more of a need for additional combat troops there. But in the years that immediately followed our initial attack, that was not the case. Insurgent attacks on our forces back in those days were sporadic and not very well organized. Our forces were able to effectively respond to most of them. As things are gradually improving, it makes sense to redeploy our troops back to Afghanistan. My fear is that the enemy will simply continue to play their little hiding game and keep jumping back across the border. It's this tactic that has forced the U.S. to resort to remote drone missile attacks on positions in Pakistan.

For all of you Iraq whiners out there, it's also worth noting that U.S. military deaths and Iraqi civilian deaths are at an all time low right now. We now have the lowest death tolls since we invaded in 2003. So if you're going to say that Iraq is a dismal failure, I beg to disagree. And more importantly, so do our forces over there. They're proud of their accomplishments, and thanks to the surge and the eventual cooperation of the Iraqis who turned their backs on Al Qaeda, we've made great strides over there. I wouldn't call the place safe by any stretch, but it's getting better. These things take time, people. If you were expecting the Iraq war to be a 3-day affair, then you are a fool. War is never quick and easy. It takes time, commitment, and determination to win a war. And it takes even more time for a new nation to form and rebuild from the rubble. I'm sorry, but I don't see Iraq as the endless quagmire that most people do. It's no cakewalk, but no war ever is.

What makes me really sad is that I have to sit here and give all of you a fucking history lesson to explain how we ended up in this war. If you're reading this blog, you SHOULD already know this stuff. Apparently, many of you do not. I find that despicable, but I guess it's more convenient for most Americans to ignore the world outside of our borders. Our current economic situation is apparently more important than our own security. My argument with that mindset is this: all other concerns will quickly become secondary if Al Qaeda gets off another attack here at home. The economy, taxes, abortion, illegal immigration, Social Security -- these are all important issues, no doubt. But think back to 9/11 for a second. How many of these issues mattered in the days or months that immediately followed 9/11? Basically, none of them mattered at that moment. Our first concern was for those who were lost, and our next concern was for our own safety and security. That being the case, why in the hell have you all forgotten that? Why have you all become so blissfully ignorant and complacent? Do you think an end to the war and a quick troop withdrawal will make us MORE safe at home? How can you possibly make that argument in light of the facts? The threats never went away. They're still out there, just like before. We've done a good job of hindering Al Qaeda, but there is still a war to be fought against them, and a lot more work to do. And that fight currently exists in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and wherever else it will lead us.

Barack Obama is highly unlikely to continue this important fight. In fact, he's made it a selling point of his campaign to pull the plug on the war in Iraq, and it stands to reason that he'll do the same in Afghanistan. Democrats always seem to think they can sweet talk their way out of conflict. Many times in life, you have to make a stand. That's what the "evil" Bush adminstration has done all these last 8 years. He made a stand. His presidency was defined solely by 9/11. His main mission was to protect the American people. I'm not saying he was the greatest president ever; far from it. But he was doing his job. I'd have done the same had I been in his position. I wish we could have done more (and I bet he does too), but when you're constantly butting heads with the likes of dumbfucks like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, it's hard to make much progress.

You can't make peace with the likes of Al Qaeda, folks. I'm tired of driving that point into the ground, but it seems you're not getting it. I'm willing to give Obama a chance to try and live up to the EXTREMELY lofty promises he's made during his campaign, but history has shown that few presidents ever live up to their campaign promises. So put your "hope" away people, because it's time for reality to set back in. He can't possibly live up to most of his own promises. He's not the messiah. He's just a man. My main reason for supporting McCain was his stance in the war on terror. He vowed to continue the fight and to protect our nation. Obama vowed to end the fight and pull back. I could care less about the rest of his campaign promises, because they're all secondary to my safety and security. If I can't live to talk about the economy or taxes, then why are we worried about them? I happen to recognize the fact that we're in real danger from terrorism. I see it every day when I seek out what's happening around the world. Obama supporters apparently feel that we're under no direct threat anymore. I'm here to tell you that we are.

So for those of you who patronize me and giggle while offering me a "...pat on the head" when you tell me not to worry, and that everything will be alright, I'd like to respond by saying you're completely out of touch with reality. Wake the fuck up. You can call the war a farce if you want to, but our troops will tell you different. They've seen the danger firsthand.
Revel in your cute little victory, but I don't see that we've won anything in this election other than extreme risk. If Obama surprises me and actually continues the fight, then I'll gain some respect for him. But he's pretty much said that he's not going to do that. There's a promise I hope he DOES break.

"Change" should not involve ignoring reality. If anything, the "change" that needs to happen is for people to actually SEE reality.

Open your eyes.

It’s All Over....More Than You Know

I suppose it's no surprise that Obama won the election. We all saw it coming.

Sure it's a historical moment, and sure it's noteworthy. But there's nothing more disgusting to me than to sit and watch Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton sitting around with smug satisfaction, like they had something to do with it. Jesse was fucking crying. I put forth that he wasn't crying out of joy, though. I'm pretty sure that Jesse was crying because HE wasn't the one that got elected president. Too bad, so sad.

Well, what I expect to see fairly soon is a rapid deterioration of everything we hold dear in this country. I know that a great many citizens of this country are all kinds of hopeful and excited. Revel in the moment. It's unlikely to last.

I'm going to take perverse joy in mocking the new president, because I'm sure he'll likely provide me with plenty of material. I'm going to take even more perverse joy in mocking the vice-president, because he's simply an asshole of the highest order.

My primary concern is what Obama is going to do to defend this country, which I suspect isn't much. For those of you Obama voters who choose to conveniently ignore events around the world (which is most of you), we're in serious trouble now. When Obama hastily pulls us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and has us all believing that everything will be peachy keen over here if we "don't bother anyone" in the Middle East, you're going to be in for an extremely deadly awakening. I'm not fearmongering here, either. I make it a point read the news about events around the world nearly every day. I follow what's happening overseas. I see the threats, and where they're coming from. We've been keeping many of those threats at bay for the last 8 years with our military. They've been absorbing bullets and shrapnel over there so that you and I don't have to over here.

Without our forces keeping us safe, the doors will now be wide open for all that anti-American sentiment to follow us home. While Obama is busy spreading and sharing our wealth, our enemies will be spreading their terror to our shores. Instead of attacking the U.S. military on the battlefront across the ocean, our enemies will now be able to make their way here and attack U.S. citizens. I truly hope I'm wrong, but I expect it will only be a matter of time before Al Qaeda lets loose with something horrible here at home again. They won't have an American presence to attack on their turf anymore, so now they can regroup and again focus on you and me. The problem is, we're not equipped as citizens to defend against that kind of threat. Especially now, since Obama is apparently against gun ownership for private citizens.

I guess if we have to defend ourselves against criminals or terrorists, we're supposed to use harsh language. Or perhaps in true Democratic Party fashion, maybe we can attempt to negotiate and reason with someone who threatens to kill us. Offer up that olive branch to the bad guys, Obama. They'll be happy to take it from you as quickly as they take your life or mine.

Now that there's all this new misguided "hope" in the country, I guess I'll have to join the "hopeful" in hoping that I'm wrong about all my predictions above. Sadly, I'm anything but hopeful. I've never been more devoid of hope in my life as I am tonight.

America, you have no idea what you've just done. Please let me be wrong, for all our sakes....