Monday, September 17, 2007
Bush setting America up for war with Iran - Telegraph
Here's an article that details proposed plans of war with Iran. Typical "what if" stuff. However, one section caught my eye.
In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armor-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.
That should be happening NOW and be a separate issue from the Iranian nuclear issue. If Iranians are actively supporting the murder of innocent Iraqi civilians as well as US soldiers, they need a swift and severe punishment.
Travis
Labels: iran, military, Murder
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Korea may be Bush's model for Iraq, officials say - CNN.com
This is a bad idea. George Bush is looking at the 38,000 troops we have in South Korea as a model for Iraq. In other words, keeping around 40k troops, equipment, and other things stationed in Iraq indefinitely.
I understand the need for a Middle East base since the Saudis and us basically took one to the chin and closed the base there. If Iraq does turn around nationally like the Anbar province has, then I say we have a vote within the Iraqi parliament to see if they really want us to have a permanent base there.
That is, however, WAY after we've removed most of our troops and we're headed out the door. Sort of a "hey, we're leaving, but if you'd like, we can stay a bit longer with a lot less guys if you'd like some protection....your choice".
And if they say no, then that's it, no. If they say yes, then fine, we'll build another base and hire a ton of Iraqi's to give the local economy jobs and security. But it MUST be after the war is over, our guys are coming home and the Iraqi government votes publicly on it.
But my gut feeling is that this is a bad idea.
Travis
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Reuters AlertNet - Israeli army declines comment on Syria bombing report
Israel attacking Syrian targets? Israel purportedly dropped fuel tanks and flew faster then the speed of sound into Syrian territory.
Was this a dry run against them in Syria's attempts to get back Golem Heights? It certainly appears that way:
Tensions between the two neighbors have been high in recent months, with some Israeli intelligence officials suggesting President Bashar al-Assad's administration might be ready to try to take by force parts of the Golan Heights, which Israel captured in the war of 1967.
Syrian officials, including Assad, have repeatedly warned Israel in recent weeks that the occupation of the Golan Heights "cannot last forever."
Of course, Iran wants to poke it's nose into things by offering help to the Syrians:
Iran's ambassador to Damascus, Mohammad Hassan Akhtari, assured security officials in Syria that Teheran would be ready to offer Damascus any assistance it may need, Iranian media reported on Thursday afternoon following a resurgence of tensions between Israel and Syria.
Personally, I say let them take the gloves off and go to town. The Israeli's, regardless of what you think of them, are ruthless when it comes to war and intelligence gathering. We all know what happened during the 1967 war when Israel kicked the snot out of just about everyone in the neighborhood.
With Iran offering help against the Israeli's, that means that Iran can't be running interference in Iraq. Israel has no problem slaughtering everyone in it's path, so it's win-win for the US.
Counterterrorism expert Boaz Ganor said that if Thursday's overflight occurred, it's possible Israel was "collecting intelligence on long-range missiles" deployed by Syria in the north.
Imad Fawzi Shoaibi, a Syrian political analyst, speculated that Israel may have been probing Syria's new air defense systems provided by Russia, at a time when tension is running high between the two countries.
Whatever the reasoning, you can bet that things aren't going to calm down anytime soon.
Labels: Incident, israel, military, Syria
26,000 U.S., Iraqi troops conduct offensive - CNN.com
With more than 1/2 of the operation involving Iraqi troops, you can't tell me that they aren't starting to get on their feet.
We're starting to push militants out of Iraq. Some Moqtada al-Sadr's men are honoring his suspension orders, so the violence levels are bound to go down.
While I'm not happy with the speed of things, I think the Iraqi's can do more, I am glad to see the progress is indeed being made.
Travis
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Air Force probes mistaken transport of nuclear warheads - CNN.com
Oh man how heads are going to roll over this one. "Missing" nuclear weapons for 3 and a half hours? Oh yeah, someone's going to get a major talking to. How do you forget that nuclear weapons are on an aircraft? I would personally think that I would be EXTREMELY nervous around nuclear weapons and thus, want to know where they were at all times if I were in charge of them.
Look for someone having to scrub toilets over this one.
Travis
Labels: Air Force, Massive Mistake, military, Nuclear Weapons
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
FT.com / World - Chinese military hacked into Pentagon
While I imagine we're doing the same thing against just about every nation on Earth, I do wonder why the Chinese were successful in their attack? Of course they deny it, but you know damned good and well it was them.
Even Lieutenant General Robert Elder says that just about everyone routinely scans our networks.
What I'd like to know is, how difficult would it be to simply ban every IP originating from China when you're in the Pentagon? I mean I don't understand hacking to a degree that professionals would, but when I have a spammer who tries to get into my networks, I simply ban their IP address at the firewall and within iptables.
Can't we do the same with China? Is it really that difficult? Why are computers with secrets even physically connected to the internet? Can't they use a private network of satellites or something?
There's 101 things that you can do to stop attacks like this, but I wonder if there's no simple way to fix it or if I have a huge career ahead of me working at the Pentagon. :)
Travis
Labels: China, Internet, military, Security
Documents: Troops disregard rules of war - CNN.com
media in a long time. Take a look at the headline and then the first paragraph:
Newly released documents regarding crimes committed by U.S. troops against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan detail a pattern of troops failing to understand and follow the rules that govern interrogations and deadly actions.
"a pattern of troops failing to understand and follow the rules.." That sounds like a lot, if not most troops in my book. But it's not the case:
The documents, released Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union ahead of a lawsuit, total nearly 10,000 pages of courts-martial summaries, transcripts and military investigative reports about 22 incidents. They show repeated examples of troops believing they were within the law when they killed local citizens.
22 incidents. Out of the 4+ years we've been there, there have been 22 incidents involving almost 160,000 US troops. That's not even 1/10th of 1% of all troops there, but if you read a headline and first paragraph of an article like that, you'd think that we were slaughtering Iraqi civilians and not following the rules en mass.
If that were true, there wouldn't be an Iraq left. We'd wipe the floor with these people. But simply put, we aren't. Yes, there have been crimes committed by troops, and those troops were court martialed for it.
Nasrina Bargzie, an attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project, said the documents also show that there is information being withheld from public scrutiny.
"The government has gone out of its way to hide the human cost of this war," Bargzie said. Releasing the documents now "paints at least a part of that picture so people at least know what's going on," she said.
How are these being hidden from the public? If you can get these documents through the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), then the government isn't hiding anything. They simply are dealing with other issues that are more important than publicly outing soldiers who've committed crimes more then is already known.
Do you honestly believe that the government would hide something then turn around and hand over documents because of FOIA?
The simple fact is that in all wars, war crimes to occur. When those facts come to light, those who are responsible are punished for it. Our military has shown great restraint and concern for civilian life that any other nation on Earth wouldn't. Yet 22 incidents out of 160,000 troops seems to be a "pattern" to the guy who wrote this article.
Travis
Labels: crime, Government, military
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Iran Prepared to Fill Iraq Power Vacuum
Sounds like a deal with the devil to me. Of course they're willing to "help out" in Iraq. They've been taking pot shots at our guys for quite some time now and they'd be happy to step in and loot the country that they fought for a long 8 years in the 80's.
But that doesn't deter one politician. One who sees through their bullshit rhetoric and is willing to call them on their nuclear program: Bush? Nope. Blair? Nope. France's President Sarkozy. FRANCE? Let me look at that report again. Yep, says France.
Sarkozy is saying that if diplomacy doesn't work, then airstrikes against their nuclear program are certainly in order.
"This initiative is the only one that can enable us to escape an alternative that I say is catastrophic: the Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran," he said, adding that it was the worst crisis currently facing the world.
Sarkozy criticized Russia for its dealings on the international stage. "Russia is imposing its return on the world scene by using its assets, notably oil and gas, with a certain brutality," he said.
"When one is a great power, one should not be brutal."
Energy disputes between Russia and neighbors such as Belarus and Ukraine have raised doubts in Europe about Moscow's reliability as a gas exporter. It supplies Europe, via its neighbors, with around a quarter of its gas demands.
Sarkozy had warm words for the United States, saying friendship between the two countries was important. But he said he felt free to disagree with American policies, highlighting what he called a lack of leadership on the environment.
I simply cannot believe this is coming from a French President. Tough words followed up with diplomacy. Now are they willing to back those words up, or are they simply empty words? The Iranian government thinks they are empty words.
They call him "inexperienced" and dismiss his words. That might be a dangerous thing to do Iran. You simply have no idea if there's a storm brewing over your continued defiance of the UN and for your calls for the destruction of Israel.
With France having it's own problems with Muslim "students" who riot and such, maybe it's time that the French are starting to grow a pair? One would hope so.
Travis
Labels: France, iran, military, nuclear program, Politics
Friday, August 24, 2007
Troops allowed to enter Pakistan - Focus on Pakistan - MSNBC.com
Now we're talking! US troops are allowed to enter into Pakistan under the following scenarios:
- “Hot pursuit” of al-Qaida, Taliban and terrorist command-and-control targets “from AFG into Pakistan (must be continuous and uninterrupted).”
- If the head of U.S. Central Command, which oversees American forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, approved direct action “against The Big 3,” listed as Osama bin Laden; his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri; and Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar. The three are still believed to be hiding in the border region.
- If the Defense secretary approved such an incursion.
What that means is, is if we are chasing after a terrorist or we know exactly where one of the "big 3" are, we're cleared to go into Pakistan.
I'm just glad our guys have the balls to do something like this. I get the feeling that under a Democratic President, we'd be asking for permission from Pakistan to go after Bin Laden.
So there won't be any "Dukes Of Hazzard" type of us stopping our pursuit once we get to the border. I noticed that the "geographic limits" are "no deeper than 6.2 miles. Personally, I don't care if we're pursuing guys all the way across the border and into the capital city. If we're after a bad guy, I say we chase him down until he escapes, he's captured, or he's killed.
Of course, Pakistan denies all this:
Told of the guidelines, Pakistani military spokesman Maj. Gen. Waheed Arshad said, “This is all nonsense. Pakistan never allowed the coalition forces to enter into our territory while chasing militants. There was no such agreement, there was no such understanding.”
That may very well be true. But that doesn't change a thing. If we know where Osama is and we go after him and do get him, Pakistan suddenly has a major problem on their hands. They were trying to block us from coming in and they had a most wanted terrorist within their lands.
But the opposite might be true. They may be saying "no" but that may only be for the public to see. Privately they may be saying "come on in".
Travis
Labels: al-qaeda, military, Pakistan, terrorism
Call Me Confused
So General Rick Lynch is saying that pulling troops out of certain areas would be a "giant step backward". Fair enough. But General Pace is "supposedly" saying that we should have a troop cut. Which is a more accurate picture of what's going on? General Lynch does say that we can start bringing home troops in 2008 if things are going well, but of course, that's still up in the air.
Couple that with the recent intelligence estimate that has said that the surge has generated "measurable" success, but doubts the political strength of Iraqi leaders, it all looks very murky.
I think the safest thing to do would be to wait for General Petraeus' report, but that certainly won't stop people and politicians from speculating as to what's going on and what will happen next.
Of course, Harry Reid is already trying to undercut the US troops by trying to get Republicans to jump the aisle and push for a quick withdrawal.
With the gains seen in Iraq lately, that seems pretty unlikely.
Of course Senator Carl Levin is now joining up with Hillary in calling for al-Maliki to be removed from office.
But what troubles me most about these three stories is that there's a suggestion of removing 5,000 troops in certain areas in order to prod the Iraqi's into stepping up to the plate. While that sounds good on paper to some, I think it's a really bad idea to use US troops and civilians in harms way in a giant game of chicken.
Travis
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Hope For Iraqis
Wait a minute. I thought the Iraqis wanted us all gone immediately. I thought they hated our guts and wanted nothing to do with us. If that's the case, why are Iraqi civilians risking their necks to save US soldiers? Oh that's right. Because what you've been told by the media is bullshit.
An Iraqi man saved the lives of four U.S. Soldiers and eight civilians when he intercepted a suicide bomber during a Concerned Citizens meeting in the town of al-Arafia Aug. 18.
They don't mention the mans name, but anyone who acts like that is a hero in my book.
Later that night, the Concerned Citizens group contacted the local National Police director, Lt. Col. Samir, with the location of the al-Qaeda cell believed to be responsible for the attack. The National Police immediately conducted a raid that resulted in four arrests.
Sounds to me like the Iraqi citizens are starting to get a foothold on their area and by working with US soldiers, they are starting to get rid of terrorist in their neighborhoods.
So tell me liberals, how can you turn your back on people like this? How can you want to pull out our guys when they face dangers like this. That makes you a coward and a traitor to these people in my book.
Travis
Labels: al-qaeda, iraq, military, surge, terrorism
Russia says Georgia suffers hallucinations in plane row | World | Reuters
Wow, usually you save the "you're hallucinating" for your buddies, not over a major international incident like this. But a Russian General said: "It must be that our Georgian colleagues are starting to suffer from hallucinations"
I tend to believe the Georgians over this one. Russia has already started up long distance fighter jets in other countries, so it's not much of a stretch to believe that they wouldn't do the same thing to Georgia.
But as long as Georgia is a US ally, Russia will do whatever it takes to make their lives as difficult as possible.
Travis
Labels: Georgia (Former Soviet State), military, Russia
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
JS Online: Medal of Honor is fake, say officials
Case in point, take Terry J. Powell claiming that he's a Medal Of Honor winner. What Mr. Powell failed to realize is that these things are easily traceable. I can bring up a list of every Medal of Honor winner in history. I can call up the military and ask questions about events that have taken place.
Mr. Powell did none of that and made the mistake of lying about the boat he was on that wasn't being used at the time he said he saw his action.
Take note Mr. Powell, REAL Medal of Honor recipients don't generally brag about it and they certainly don't need liars such as yourself trying to take away from the honor that such an award befalls them.
Travis
Labels: military
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
