Concerning Obama's now infamous '67 borders speech of last week - people are not paying enough attention to fact that Netanyahu was informed of contents of speech day before it was given, complained bitterly, and yet the speech wasn't changed - this means the '67 borders phrasing was not a mistake of sloppy writing or other shortcomings but was indeed the message Obama intended - so the question becomes, what was that message? There have been various interpretations of whether or not Obama actually changed the game and threw Israel under the bus by subtly stepping away from the default American position on negotiations - to me the phrasing indeed seems somewhat intentionally ambiguous [which in and of itself could concern the Israelis] and of course if Obama ingnored Bibi's complaints the ambiguity must therefore be deliberate - but it was the context though, what Obama didn't say, the things not included or clearly defined relative to the central statement, that gives the impression that indeed Obama was trying to telegraph a pro-Palestinian intent - certainly, the Palestinians interpreted it that way, as did some high profile 'Israel haters' in American punditry, as did essentially everyone in Israel, both peaceniks and hardliners - so, whatever Obama's intentions, the result is clear.
Still, what Obama's intentions were matters - and it seems, given that he knew of Netanyahu's fierce objections beforehand, only two possibilities look likely: one, Obama sincerely believed this was the best way to appease European concerns and get them on board in opposition to Palestinian UN statehood tactic; or two, Obama was once again, as he did with the settlements issue, channeling the anti-Israel sentiments of American left wing academia, where the default position is Palestinians are the victims here and must be rescued from evil aggressor and American imperialist proxy Israel by forcing the Zionists into making deep concessions to that end. I find the former simplistic, naive, and therefore possibly not plausible - although, possibly entirely plausible for the same reasons [see Libya]; I find the latter disturbingly believable. It could also be both in this sense: the speech was intended to say to the Europeans 'Look, I hate Israel as much as you guys do, and I'm working to back them into a corner so as they have no choice but to make concessions - but we can't let this Palestinian UN nonsense go forward cause it'd be disastrous'. There's several problems with this plan if it was the plan, chief of which you've merely increased attractiveness of UN appeal for Palestinians because any vague language that appears to justify Palestinian claims while further isolating Israel renders negotiations impossible and therefore makes the UN appeal not only seem like an increasingly good option to the Palestinians, but indeed the only option from their point of view [although I suppose one can argue that if the UN gambit is a fait accompli then all that remains is trying to convince the Europeans to oppose it - but again all you've managed to do is make things worse by seeming to justify Palestinian claims and all that does is strengthen their hand regardless of what Europe does since the goal here is all theatrical - with real consequences of course - knowing that in the end the US will, as a matter of mere law, kill the resolution with their veto, even if they stand alone in doing so - this is why in my opinion it wasn't the mention of '67 borders per se that bothered Israel, it was the ambiguous phrasing and context that lent itself to abuse by Israel's enemies that worried them and the unavoidable conclusion that this undermining of their position was deliberate - and I suppose by thought that this deliberate undermining followed closely on the heels of the Hamas/Fatah alliance forming - ie it sent the message to Palestinians that militancy was a winning option for them with a guy in the White House who either was at worst not a resolute believer in American power or at best actually on their side in the dispute - in short, the Israelis saw the speech as inviting bad behavior and therefore augmenting likelihood of war - but of course it would be absurd to think someone tempting war here - so if you're Israel there'd be only two conclusions to draw: the Obama administration is incompetent or delusional - but regardless of which, whether willfully or not, as a consequence of this incompetence or spiteful delusion, a looming threat to Israel].
[over at Jerusalem Post Caroline Glick speculates that Obama is desperate to get Europeans on board in opposing the Palestinian UN ploy not as a means to delegitimize it but rather because he's so loathe to be left standing alone on the world stage defending something that so offends his sensibilities. Hard to know how much truth there is in that - like I said, hatred of Israel and by association hatred of that part of American culture that rushes to its defense is the status quo philosophical sweet spot in the left wing academic faculty lounges that hatched Obama - but if true would set up interesting scenario should war break out and he's required to send troops in - not that he'd have a choice of course, he'll have to play with vigor the part of arch defender of the Jews - but his ability to dissemble shamelessly in speeches, which I think is his greatest skill - he's an excellent con man - will certainly be put to the test]
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Why has Russia chimed in on the 'Qaddafi must go' chorus after opposing, sometimes harshly, the Libyan intervention since the onset? They've repeatedly [with some accuracy] called the actions against Tripoli in general and Qaddafi in particular 'illegal' and not in keeping with the parameters of the UN resolution - why suddenly do they seem to go against themselves here?
Possibly politicking by Medvedev, in which case we should soon see a countervailing opinion coming from Putin. Possibly they see Qaddafi's end approaching, figure chaos will ensue and want to be in a position to capitalize on it in some way - not sure how - oil interests of some kind one imagines - maybe they see American and especially British, French and Italian oil interests being at threat in a post Qaddafi Libya, which seems counterintuitive, but who knows what rushes in to fill the vacuum left by Qaddafi's potential demise.
On that point - I see some who supported this intervention, and I mean neocon types who not only supported it but are pissed that Obama hasn't more vigorously pressed the issue, are now talking about provisions for security once Libya falls to the 'rebels' [premature to think Qaddafi done as far as I'm concerned - yeah, wouldn't surprise me to see him soon slip across the border into Chad or Niger, nor to have a confidante betray him with a bullet to the head - but neither would it surprise me to see him hold on for another six months and possibly in doing so retain control over the western portion of a Libya divided by ceasefire - those now counting the days till his demise are probably the same fools who thought this war would be over in a week] - but the point is, why are these people only considering the post war problems now? This was a foolish war, poorly thought out and defended by specious arguments and motivations, designed to serve a strategic purpose that was vague at best, delusional at worst - I mean, originally it was supposedly about forestalling a 'humanitarian' disaster but the intervention itself has probably done more harm than good in that respect - but regardless, it was always the aftermath that caused me the most trouble - the cleanup is gonna be a nightmare - there'll probably be an insurgency of some sort, civil wars blowing hot and cold, tribal and factional violence and infighting, and at the end of the day the possible rise to power of a group or groups not at all friendly to the forces that enabled their rise - why is it enthusiasts are only now considering these problems? Countries of real strategic import to the US - Syria, Bahrain, Yemen - are crying out for attention and we're dicking around in Libya - for what? - to avoid some European refugee crisis that probably happens now anyway? to spend years rebuilding a strategically meaningless country so the Chinese can eventually return and exploit it? Did Obama have some fanciful idea that in reducing America's role and thus supposedly lending credence to the belief that America no longer is nor has to be the necessary power that this would empower a new self reliance in Europe? Cause if that was his plan it has utterly backfired and indeed seems to have exposed exact opposite reality. The whole thing verges on farcical.
Possibly politicking by Medvedev, in which case we should soon see a countervailing opinion coming from Putin. Possibly they see Qaddafi's end approaching, figure chaos will ensue and want to be in a position to capitalize on it in some way - not sure how - oil interests of some kind one imagines - maybe they see American and especially British, French and Italian oil interests being at threat in a post Qaddafi Libya, which seems counterintuitive, but who knows what rushes in to fill the vacuum left by Qaddafi's potential demise.
On that point - I see some who supported this intervention, and I mean neocon types who not only supported it but are pissed that Obama hasn't more vigorously pressed the issue, are now talking about provisions for security once Libya falls to the 'rebels' [premature to think Qaddafi done as far as I'm concerned - yeah, wouldn't surprise me to see him soon slip across the border into Chad or Niger, nor to have a confidante betray him with a bullet to the head - but neither would it surprise me to see him hold on for another six months and possibly in doing so retain control over the western portion of a Libya divided by ceasefire - those now counting the days till his demise are probably the same fools who thought this war would be over in a week] - but the point is, why are these people only considering the post war problems now? This was a foolish war, poorly thought out and defended by specious arguments and motivations, designed to serve a strategic purpose that was vague at best, delusional at worst - I mean, originally it was supposedly about forestalling a 'humanitarian' disaster but the intervention itself has probably done more harm than good in that respect - but regardless, it was always the aftermath that caused me the most trouble - the cleanup is gonna be a nightmare - there'll probably be an insurgency of some sort, civil wars blowing hot and cold, tribal and factional violence and infighting, and at the end of the day the possible rise to power of a group or groups not at all friendly to the forces that enabled their rise - why is it enthusiasts are only now considering these problems? Countries of real strategic import to the US - Syria, Bahrain, Yemen - are crying out for attention and we're dicking around in Libya - for what? - to avoid some European refugee crisis that probably happens now anyway? to spend years rebuilding a strategically meaningless country so the Chinese can eventually return and exploit it? Did Obama have some fanciful idea that in reducing America's role and thus supposedly lending credence to the belief that America no longer is nor has to be the necessary power that this would empower a new self reliance in Europe? Cause if that was his plan it has utterly backfired and indeed seems to have exposed exact opposite reality. The whole thing verges on farcical.
From WSJ editorial:
During the 2008 election I came up with an idea to make some money by selling anti-Obama bumper-stickers - my favorite was: Destroy America - vote Obama. Prescient.
Above should be read in concert with this Navy centric dystopian musing.
Mr. Gates knows well that America won't balance its budget by squeezing the Pentagon. "If you cut the defense budget by 10%, which would be catastrophic in terms of force structure, that's $55 billion out of a $1.4 trillion deficit," he told the Journal's CEO Council conference last November. "We are not the problem."
So what is? Mr. Gates acknowledged it only in passing this week, but the reality is that the entitlement state is crowding out national defense. Over two decades ago, liberal historian Paul Kennedy claimed that "imperial overstretch" had brought first the Romans, then the British and now Americans down to size. He was wrong then, but what's really happening now is "entitlement overstretch," to quote military analyst Andrew Krepinevich.
The American entitlement state was born with the New Deal, got fat with the Great Society of the 1960s and hit another growth spurt in the first two years of the Obama era. The big three entitlements—Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, plus other retirement and disability expenses—accounted for 4.9% of GDP by 1970, eclipsed defense spending in 1976 and stood at 9.8% as of last year. Under current projections, entitlements will eat up 10.8% of GDP by 2020, while defense spending goes down to 2.7%. On current trends, those entitlements will consume all tax revenues by 2052, estimates Mackenzie Eaglen of the Heritage Foundation.
Europe went down this yellow brick road decades ago and today spends just 1.7% of GDP on defense. The Europeans get a free security ride from America, but who will the U.S. turn to for protection—China?
As Reagan knew, America's global power begins at home, with a strong economy able to generate wealth. The push for defense cuts reflects the reality of a weak recovery and a national debt that has doubled in the last two years. But the Obama Administration made a conscious decision to squeeze defense while pouring money on everything else.
During the 2008 election I came up with an idea to make some money by selling anti-Obama bumper-stickers - my favorite was: Destroy America - vote Obama. Prescient.
Above should be read in concert with this Navy centric dystopian musing.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Interesting take on Osama cull - he was betrayed by the Egyptian wing of AQ - the Egyptian wing apparently disagrees with the Saudi wing viz goals in Pakistan - Egyptian wing wants to destabilize Pakistan with hopes I assume of empowering Islamists there with goal of eventual insurrection of some sort one supposes - I have no idea if any of that's true, but doesn't sound nuts - and an Egyptian guy was just named temporary leader of those bearded bastards - comports with my point all along ie there's a positive take here and a negative one - the negative take is entirely legitimate but is also almost entirely ignored, even on the right - I find this curious and disturbing [the 'negative' in short is: you didn't have to go behind Pak's back, in doing so you further destabilize country, push them closer to China, disincentivize them viz helping with Afghanistan; two, you didn't have kill Osama, in doing so you possibly lost out on important intel, gave the guy exactly what he wanted and also possibly lost a bargaining chip in dealing with Pak ie maybe something along the lines of threatening to embarrass them over Osama complicity if they didn't start being more help than hindrance in Afghanistan].
update: from the Nightwatch security group the first mention of the downside [which ultimately could prove much more significant than the putative upside] of the Osama raid that I've seen in any of the mainstream sources [although Nightwatch ain't mainstream, but is read by people who are, sort of]:
update: from the Nightwatch security group the first mention of the downside [which ultimately could prove much more significant than the putative upside] of the Osama raid that I've seen in any of the mainstream sources [although Nightwatch ain't mainstream, but is read by people who are, sort of]:
As NightWatch has reported on several occasions, the US relationship with Pakistan has been irreparably broken. A new, more arms-length relationship is evolving in which the US is a friend for some purposes and a potential threat for others.
One implication is that the operating environment for drones and other aircraft appears to be about to change. The drones and their crews have ably demonstrated their war fighting capabilities under conditions in which the US owns the airspace. That is an important benchmark. However, their performance in a non-permissive environment is a different, important benchmark, which has yet to be established. It is about to be, along the Durand Line.
The second implication is that, by acting quickly, China has drawn Pakistan more tightly into its sphere of influence, countering a decade of US aid and energy. Prime Minister Gilani said on 17 May on arriving, China is Pakistan's best friend.updated update: Pakistani newspaper The News today reports this:
On the third day of Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani's visit to China - and the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations, China warned that any attack on Pakistan would be tantamount to an attack on China, The News reported.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao reportedly told Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani that Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi warned Washington during the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue to respect Pakistan's sovereignty. Moreover, Beijing will send a special envoy to Islamabad to express solidarity with Pakistan, a senior Chinese official said.I wonder when/if the American press is ever going to quit its tireless efforts to get the incompetent Obama re-elected and actually address the real story here?
About those OBL photos - if Obama is the duplicitous, scheming, self serving, Alinsky loving uber politician I think he is then don't be surprised if, in the run up to November 2012, a 'mysterious, inexplicable' leak lets them loose in the world. Although, an interesting poll just released seems to suggest that even though Obama's approval rating has gotten a bit of a boost from the summary execution of Big Bin, most of that boost appears to come from republicans - they ain't voting for Obama - pleased as punch that Mr Martyr sleeps with the fishes, sure, but don't expect them to still be giddy come 2012 - so maybe I'm making too much of the way this political udder is so furiously being milked.
Yet the White House today released more videos of Usama in his lair supposedly hard at work running his evil empire - this is just silly - if the guy was still such a vital cog in the AQ machine, it was pretty god damn stupid to kill him, no? And isn't it good practice to not let your enemies know what you know about them? Why are they crowing about the massive haul of intel this raid has pulled in? Isn't the smart move here to keep your mouth shut in hopes of luring your enemies into a trap? [unless of course your real objective here is to simply make sure it's Obama in '12]. Aside from the operation itself, so much about this affair seems just a wee bit clumsy, contrived, crassly manipulative and strategically inept.
Ah - just announced: Obama will be giving a 'big' speech on Mideast soon - there's your strategy - like I said, inept - he signs off on some Kansas farm boy putting a bullet through Osama's head and now he's gotta go all sermon on the mount again - what a ponderous individual - he strings together a few lofty sounding sentences that set the tweeded hermaphrodites in the Harvard faculty lounge to giggling with delight and it's as if he actually thinks it means something, that something significant has been accomplished - it so bespeaks [bespeaks? really?] of a hungry ego yearning for affirmation from dutiful supplicants - I dunno - I guess if you're a blackish guy trolling for confirmation through the whited sepulcher of American left wing academia, constantly congratulated, lauded and ultimately granted proto-deification for being so 'charming' and 'eloquent' and 'thoughtful' - I guess maybe Obama is what you turn into - I dunno.
Yet the White House today released more videos of Usama in his lair supposedly hard at work running his evil empire - this is just silly - if the guy was still such a vital cog in the AQ machine, it was pretty god damn stupid to kill him, no? And isn't it good practice to not let your enemies know what you know about them? Why are they crowing about the massive haul of intel this raid has pulled in? Isn't the smart move here to keep your mouth shut in hopes of luring your enemies into a trap? [unless of course your real objective here is to simply make sure it's Obama in '12]. Aside from the operation itself, so much about this affair seems just a wee bit clumsy, contrived, crassly manipulative and strategically inept.
Ah - just announced: Obama will be giving a 'big' speech on Mideast soon - there's your strategy - like I said, inept - he signs off on some Kansas farm boy putting a bullet through Osama's head and now he's gotta go all sermon on the mount again - what a ponderous individual - he strings together a few lofty sounding sentences that set the tweeded hermaphrodites in the Harvard faculty lounge to giggling with delight and it's as if he actually thinks it means something, that something significant has been accomplished - it so bespeaks [bespeaks? really?] of a hungry ego yearning for affirmation from dutiful supplicants - I dunno - I guess if you're a blackish guy trolling for confirmation through the whited sepulcher of American left wing academia, constantly congratulated, lauded and ultimately granted proto-deification for being so 'charming' and 'eloquent' and 'thoughtful' - I guess maybe Obama is what you turn into - I dunno.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Apropos my concerns regarding MSM agenda to shamelessly aid in the burnishing of Obama's 'strong leader' image as much as possible in wake of Osama kill CNN today reports that an anonymous Obama official tells how the administration had plans for the SEAL team to 'fight' its way out of Pakistan if it had to - and no where in the report is there any indication of how absolutely bad that would have been, extremely bad, disastrous - no, just carrying water for the administration since it's obvious this leak's intention is to polish that strong leader image just a wee bit more. The short term tactical advantage of keeping the Pakistanis in the dark is easy to understand - but that short term advantage risks putting much more important long term strategic goals in jeopardy - a significant military confrontation that resulted in Pakistani deaths and Pakistani military hardware being vaporized by stealth fighters and precision munitions would have turned those risks into a dire reality [hell, there remains a reasonable chance that those risks could materialize even without the military confrontation] - but the press is dutifully keeping from the public such inappropriate ruminations. Burnish that image, boys. Again, I'm not saying the op was wrong or ill conceived - I'm saying there's another side to it that is possibly much less flattering to Obama and is not being reported on for that very reason - yes, there are abstruse foreign policy and strategy sites that have touched on the subject - but for the average voter, and, more importantly from Obama's POV, independent voters the only story being sold them is 'courageous, gutsy Obama killed the bad guy' - sure, this is sour grapes on my part - I've disliked and distrusted Obama since his keynote address in 2004, predicted then he'd be president and a bad one, worse than Bush, and he's on his way to proving me right - so, yes, that the benefit he reaps from the death of OBL is grossly out of whack viz the benefit he deserves certainly annoys - but sour grapes aside the story that's being sown here is a politically biased misrepresentation guaranteed to bring forth an unfortunate harvest. It's one thing for a politician to be busy with the business of manufacturing an image - one could argue that's all politicians ever do - but when the press is so willingly co-opted into the effort, you got yourself a serious problem.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
No one else it seems has asked the question yet so I guess I will [cynical, muckraking bastard that I am]: to wit, US intel seems to have known for quite sometime where Osama was - and, as I referenced before, there's an indication that they only went after him now because arrest of the Bali bomber possibly risked spurring a move on Osama's part - plus, there have been some rumors swirling about that Obama put off making this hit for possibly as much as a few months - so, is it possible they were trying to push this thing to as close to the election as they reasonably could or simply waiting to spring it when polls looked to be sliding as they were last week? Granted, there could be several very good reasons for the delay - but, given what we have seen of the way Obama likes his Chicago style politics, I don't think it's absurd at all to wonder if maybe there was a less than honorable motivation to the delay. Just wondering - after all, you have a wild card like that in your hand it gives you a lot of options - I mean, this whole Libya debacle was done knowing full well that at any time he could dramatically change the story simply by sending a bullet through Osama's head [and accordingly Libya drops way down below the fold, a mere distraction to be marginalized lest it draw light from the real story of Obama our warrior King]. Just wondering - for instance, how naive would I have to be to think it was merely a coincidence that Americans got to wake up Monday morning to this news thus guaranteeing Obama a full week of press preening topped off at week's end by all the Sunday political shows having Obama officials on talking talking talking about the president's 'guts' [every one of them used virtually the exact same language - 'guts' - one exuberant catamite even compared the president's courage to that of the SEALS who pulled the trigger] and finally a gushing lionization on 60 Minutes that night? Pretty god damn naive the way I see it.
Still, though the politics of it may be annoying if not outright galling, such is to be expected, especially from Obama who, as I've said before, is all about manipulation of an image cleverly cultivated by vague, misleading rhetoric, idealist theatrics and shamelessly playing off the illusion of a post-racial sensibility - it's the willingness of the press to play along that truly troubles. After all, there are serious questions that need to be raised here about this operation that are not being raised - one of course understands the rationale for keeping Pakistan out of the loop, but was that really the right decision if the consequences of that are a deeper unsettling of Pakistani politics and culture and a further push of it into China's orbit? You want me to believe that once you know where Osama is you can't then go to Pakistan and force their hand? I'm not saying the decision to go behind their back was wrong, I'm saying the alternative was probably viable and potentially of greater strategic value. Again, one understands the rationale behind simply executing the man on the spot, but how smart was that really and, of possibly more significance, why exactly was that decision made - to expedite things with the least amount of fuss or to avoid the necessary legitimization of military tribunals and Guantanamo that jailing OBL would have rendered unavoidable?
Finally, as far as I'm concerned Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster [although I believe an objective reckoning would substantially back up this opinion] - but now suddenly I'm supposed to see him as a strong leader blessed with a keen insight into American strategic concerns simply because he ok'd an operation for which he was only marginally responsible and in fact possibly doesn't even happen without the contribution of Bush era initiatives that Obama not only opposed but when you get right down to it should run decidedly against his ideological grain and the left wing sympathies of his most ardent supporters? That seems not only ridiculous, but distressingly dangerous - and yet that is the storyline the press is actively pushing.
Still, though the politics of it may be annoying if not outright galling, such is to be expected, especially from Obama who, as I've said before, is all about manipulation of an image cleverly cultivated by vague, misleading rhetoric, idealist theatrics and shamelessly playing off the illusion of a post-racial sensibility - it's the willingness of the press to play along that truly troubles. After all, there are serious questions that need to be raised here about this operation that are not being raised - one of course understands the rationale for keeping Pakistan out of the loop, but was that really the right decision if the consequences of that are a deeper unsettling of Pakistani politics and culture and a further push of it into China's orbit? You want me to believe that once you know where Osama is you can't then go to Pakistan and force their hand? I'm not saying the decision to go behind their back was wrong, I'm saying the alternative was probably viable and potentially of greater strategic value. Again, one understands the rationale behind simply executing the man on the spot, but how smart was that really and, of possibly more significance, why exactly was that decision made - to expedite things with the least amount of fuss or to avoid the necessary legitimization of military tribunals and Guantanamo that jailing OBL would have rendered unavoidable?
Finally, as far as I'm concerned Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster [although I believe an objective reckoning would substantially back up this opinion] - but now suddenly I'm supposed to see him as a strong leader blessed with a keen insight into American strategic concerns simply because he ok'd an operation for which he was only marginally responsible and in fact possibly doesn't even happen without the contribution of Bush era initiatives that Obama not only opposed but when you get right down to it should run decidedly against his ideological grain and the left wing sympathies of his most ardent supporters? That seems not only ridiculous, but distressingly dangerous - and yet that is the storyline the press is actively pushing.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
A different scenario emerges from writer for Asia Times - US special forces were given basing rights nearby because Pakistani authorities believed the target was terror suspect related to recent capture of Patek, the Bali bomber [apparently Pakistan has granted basing rights for such purposes before] - only when the US forces were safely back in Afghanistan was Pakistan informed the target had actually been Osama - that is why the confusion and embarrassment on Pakistan's part seems real - and this would explain how after a 40 minute firefight in the heart of a highly militarized part of Pakistan 3 MH-60 Pave Hawks could make the hour long trip back to Afghanistan without encountering any resistance nor needing to refuel. This scenario makes sense to me because I can buy a stealthy infiltration, it's the hour long exfil [given the cruise speed of the MH-60 you're looking at about an hour flight time] after a firefight while running low on fuel that I find a little hard to swallow.
Asia Times also floats idea that it was the capture of Patek in the same town a few months earlier that pushed the US to act quickly on Osama - Patek had been in touch with AQ associates in Abottabad and therefore once he was captured it would be obvious assumption on Oasma's part that his refuge had been compromised - in fact it may indeed have been intel from Patek that led CIA to the compound, or at least to the belief that it housed Osama - it seems fairly well established that the US had already linked OBL's courier to the property.
Asia Times also floats idea that it was the capture of Patek in the same town a few months earlier that pushed the US to act quickly on Osama - Patek had been in touch with AQ associates in Abottabad and therefore once he was captured it would be obvious assumption on Oasma's part that his refuge had been compromised - in fact it may indeed have been intel from Patek that led CIA to the compound, or at least to the belief that it housed Osama - it seems fairly well established that the US had already linked OBL's courier to the property.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
No real clarity yet on OBL termination - except that many people feel deeply offended by my suggestion that the special op weren't so special maybe and there's significant hype going on for Obama boosting purposes. I'm not saying that's definitely the reality here - I'm just wondering about possibility given that people are making a lot of clear assertions about something that remains quite murky.
Still, fact is I have no idea if US has the ability to penetrate that far into heavily protected Pakistani airspace with slow moving helos, fight a heated battle for about an hour, and then leave without Pakistani air defense apparently having the slightest clue that something was amiss. It seems far fetched - but the US has a lot of radar blocking/masking/decoying tech that only experts understand well enough to discuss - and so far I haven't heard any expert offering an opinion as to how this was possible - so I remain a bit sceptical.
I have read two different opinions, both which sounded credible, about whether the remaining tail section of the downed chopper looks to be from an American MH-60 or from a Pakistani Huey - looks like an MH-60 to me, but really I haven't foggiest. Pakistan, after some indecision, has come out to firmly deny playing a part in the raid or of having foreknowledge of it - but then of course they're gonna say that - why the confusion then? - leads me to think that if they were unsure of what story to tell that probably means they didn't know or participate.
So, could be a brilliantly executed covert op then for which Obama probably deserves some credit, reluctant as I am to give it to him - still, there's a lot of unanswered questions here.
One thing people seem to be increasingly in agreement on is the unlikelihood that the ISI or the Pakistani military didn't know Osama was there or were not complicit in some way with protecting him - as one analyst said, there's only two conclusions to draw here: one, the ISI is not nearly as capable as we thought; or two, somebody's lying.
Or there's a third option - some element of Pakistani security services was protecting him and decided to give him up now either because the CIA was finally closing in or because a deal was made regarding something Pakistan wanted badly - or both - this is the part of the story that one expects to slowly be exposed if true.
Two curious developments though - WH has changed story on how OBL was killed - originally said shot while armed and returning fire - now saying he wasn't armed, which has the effect of emphasizing the cold blooded assassination nature of the op - not sure why they'd want to to that - other curious thing is that WH now refusing to talk about types of helicopters used in the operation - had originally said an MH-60 and a Chinook were involved [although most assume more assets than that present - including possibly the MQ-170 jet powered stealth drone, which the air force has been very secretive about] - no explanation as to why they no longer want to talk about helicopters used - I would guess, if there indeed is more to this op than meets the eye, it has something to do with that photo that has turned up of the tail section of the downed bird.
update: more 'experts' offering opinions on picture of downed helo - consensus seems to be it is indeed tail of an MH-60, but modified - a stealth helicopter? Certainly possible to retrofit these helos with stealthy elements - not sure though why JSOC would keep this capability a secret - although I guess surprise of OBL take down would be very good reason. Also lots of talk about the RQ-170's advanced and very secret radar defeating capabilities - these two things may indeed explain how an undetected insertion into heavily defended Pakistani air space was possible [and remember a helo doesn't need to be as stealthy as a plane because of its ability to hug the ground] - yet, sure, I may be able to buy possibility of infiltration, but how the hell did they manage to get out too? And where or how exactly did they refuel, since I'm pretty sure a refueling would have been necessary? And did they exit to Afghanistan, India, directly to the USS Carl Vinson in the Arabian Sea? I don't know what to think - but having read some statements by Pakistani officials the sense of embarrassment and confusion on their part does seem sincere and therefore may indicate this op went down much as described.
Some are beginning to ask though, if the 'embarrassment' for the Pakistanis of this brazen incursion through their defenses results in a backlash that destabilizes the gov't or pushes Pakistan more completely into the Chinese orbit, will it have been worth it? I mean, you've put a bullet into the face of an aging and increasingly marginalized radical who was probably dying of kidney failure - not sure what that accomplishes outside of the visceral satisfaction of it - after all, Osama was more of a symptom of the threatening disease rather than its cause. Then again, no way any American president would pass on opportunity to kill Osama - hell, Pelosi could've been president and jumped at the opportunity - shit, Nader even - well, maybe not Nader - still, why all the praise being thrown Obama's way kind of annoys - sure, if it went down as they say, it was a ballsy decision - but can one think of any potential president who wouldn't have made the exact same decision?
Related to attempts to burnish Obama with the reflected 'glory' of this successful raid [which was my original point] - facts leaking out of how 'enhanced interrogation techniques' and intel picked up in Iraq led us to Osama seem to be making liberals uneasy - not to mention Obama now having to praise the courage and expertise of an 'assassination squad' that was once used to defame Cheney by lefites everywhere and the fact the JSOC that pulled this off was was significantly ungraded and re-missioned for this type of targeted kill by none other than the reviled General McChrystal who was shamed and forced to retire by inflammatory Rolling Stone article that made him look like a blood thirsty killer - the irony of all this is something to enjoy - although my original point, for which I was pilloried, was this exactly - the press is determined to make Obama the hero here by short changing Bush, Cheney, McChrystal et al.
Still, fact is I have no idea if US has the ability to penetrate that far into heavily protected Pakistani airspace with slow moving helos, fight a heated battle for about an hour, and then leave without Pakistani air defense apparently having the slightest clue that something was amiss. It seems far fetched - but the US has a lot of radar blocking/masking/decoying tech that only experts understand well enough to discuss - and so far I haven't heard any expert offering an opinion as to how this was possible - so I remain a bit sceptical.
I have read two different opinions, both which sounded credible, about whether the remaining tail section of the downed chopper looks to be from an American MH-60 or from a Pakistani Huey - looks like an MH-60 to me, but really I haven't foggiest. Pakistan, after some indecision, has come out to firmly deny playing a part in the raid or of having foreknowledge of it - but then of course they're gonna say that - why the confusion then? - leads me to think that if they were unsure of what story to tell that probably means they didn't know or participate.
So, could be a brilliantly executed covert op then for which Obama probably deserves some credit, reluctant as I am to give it to him - still, there's a lot of unanswered questions here.
One thing people seem to be increasingly in agreement on is the unlikelihood that the ISI or the Pakistani military didn't know Osama was there or were not complicit in some way with protecting him - as one analyst said, there's only two conclusions to draw here: one, the ISI is not nearly as capable as we thought; or two, somebody's lying.
Or there's a third option - some element of Pakistani security services was protecting him and decided to give him up now either because the CIA was finally closing in or because a deal was made regarding something Pakistan wanted badly - or both - this is the part of the story that one expects to slowly be exposed if true.
Two curious developments though - WH has changed story on how OBL was killed - originally said shot while armed and returning fire - now saying he wasn't armed, which has the effect of emphasizing the cold blooded assassination nature of the op - not sure why they'd want to to that - other curious thing is that WH now refusing to talk about types of helicopters used in the operation - had originally said an MH-60 and a Chinook were involved [although most assume more assets than that present - including possibly the MQ-170 jet powered stealth drone, which the air force has been very secretive about] - no explanation as to why they no longer want to talk about helicopters used - I would guess, if there indeed is more to this op than meets the eye, it has something to do with that photo that has turned up of the tail section of the downed bird.
update: more 'experts' offering opinions on picture of downed helo - consensus seems to be it is indeed tail of an MH-60, but modified - a stealth helicopter? Certainly possible to retrofit these helos with stealthy elements - not sure though why JSOC would keep this capability a secret - although I guess surprise of OBL take down would be very good reason. Also lots of talk about the RQ-170's advanced and very secret radar defeating capabilities - these two things may indeed explain how an undetected insertion into heavily defended Pakistani air space was possible [and remember a helo doesn't need to be as stealthy as a plane because of its ability to hug the ground] - yet, sure, I may be able to buy possibility of infiltration, but how the hell did they manage to get out too? And where or how exactly did they refuel, since I'm pretty sure a refueling would have been necessary? And did they exit to Afghanistan, India, directly to the USS Carl Vinson in the Arabian Sea? I don't know what to think - but having read some statements by Pakistani officials the sense of embarrassment and confusion on their part does seem sincere and therefore may indicate this op went down much as described.
Some are beginning to ask though, if the 'embarrassment' for the Pakistanis of this brazen incursion through their defenses results in a backlash that destabilizes the gov't or pushes Pakistan more completely into the Chinese orbit, will it have been worth it? I mean, you've put a bullet into the face of an aging and increasingly marginalized radical who was probably dying of kidney failure - not sure what that accomplishes outside of the visceral satisfaction of it - after all, Osama was more of a symptom of the threatening disease rather than its cause. Then again, no way any American president would pass on opportunity to kill Osama - hell, Pelosi could've been president and jumped at the opportunity - shit, Nader even - well, maybe not Nader - still, why all the praise being thrown Obama's way kind of annoys - sure, if it went down as they say, it was a ballsy decision - but can one think of any potential president who wouldn't have made the exact same decision?
Related to attempts to burnish Obama with the reflected 'glory' of this successful raid [which was my original point] - facts leaking out of how 'enhanced interrogation techniques' and intel picked up in Iraq led us to Osama seem to be making liberals uneasy - not to mention Obama now having to praise the courage and expertise of an 'assassination squad' that was once used to defame Cheney by lefites everywhere and the fact the JSOC that pulled this off was was significantly ungraded and re-missioned for this type of targeted kill by none other than the reviled General McChrystal who was shamed and forced to retire by inflammatory Rolling Stone article that made him look like a blood thirsty killer - the irony of all this is something to enjoy - although my original point, for which I was pilloried, was this exactly - the press is determined to make Obama the hero here by short changing Bush, Cheney, McChrystal et al.
Monday, May 2, 2011
OBL killed - I find the news somewhat anticlimactic - what immediately struck me was news coverage, CNN and the like, who wanted to stress the idea that Obama showed 'courage' etc to launch raid without permission from Pakistan - but all the analysis I've read from security experts suggests it is highly unlikely Pakistan wasn't involved and that any official story claiming the opposite is merely cover for Pakistani pols - indeed the makeup of the compound and its location in an area containing significant Pakistani military assets suggest not only that it seems unlikely US would have attempted a covert air insertion into such a sensitive area without cooperation from Pakistani military but also that the Pakistani military has been protecting Osama all along and for reasons not yet clear decided to finally give him up - point being liberal press very quickly trying to contrast Obama and Carter here - remember the failed Iranian hostage rescue that came to seem symbolic of Carter's inept leadership.
Don't know why my first thought was this - probably cause I realize it is indeed a victory for Obama no matter how contrived his connection to it is - and the slavish way the press rushes to milk this victory is galling - suppose I should get over though, kind of petty - although fact remains OBL's death not really that important, satisfying sure, but not important - he passed on leadership of AQ to youthful subordinates several years ago - he was essentially in retirement and waiting no doubt for this end which he probably saw as inevitable - the real story remains: has Pakistan known where he was all along? why give him up now - ie, did the CIA finally track him down and give them an ultimatum? or has some deal been struck about other things? what will the fallout be if the cover story doesn't hold? is it possible the harboring of OBL was an independent operation run by Pakistani intelligence services without gov't knowledge? if so, what would that mean? and finally, impact on war in Afghanistan: make things worse? better? provide the pretext for Obama to get the hell out?
update: still few details but lots of questions. If Pakistan cooperated, why then a risky helicopter insertion? Deniability, possibly - but roping in from some Blackhawks at night while under fire isn't easy - would we be willing to risk that in order to supply cover story for Pakistan? Not impossible I guess, but if Pakistan was cooperating some sort of ground assault seems in order - but of course there'd be no denying complicity then. The compound was nestled into a relatively nice neighborhood [for Pakistan] just down the road from a military installation in a town where Pakistani military officers go to retire - plus, the compound looked like a place that was obviously trying to hide something - how could the Pakistani military or Pakistani security services really not be in on this? Did the CIA find proof of duplicity on part of Pakistan while uncovering Osama's whereabouts and that's why we went in without letting them know? Fact is, no one knows how many similar operations of this type have happened and we never heard about them because they came up empty - Pakistan would have no reason to advertise such by complaining about it publicly. Still, hard to see how you move noisy helicopters that far inland through fairly militarized areas and not run into some opposition - seems a bit improbable, especially when you add in fact one of the helos was lost - I mean, how did the crew and troops on that chopper manage to exfil on what would have been a very overloaded remaining chopper? Seems likely another chopper was called in or had been standing by for just such a purpose - is it really possible all that happened and choppers managed to make the long trip back to Afghanistan without the Pakistani air force or air defenses ever being alerted? We're not talking stealthy F-22s here whirling off into the night at mach 2 - we're talking very unstealthy and relatively slow moving helicopters. Seems impossible - but then again I really have no idea what capabilities JSOC has so may indeed be completely feasible.
update: apparently area where compound was located was in a highly controlled air defense corridor - in other words, very unlikely Pakistan did not cooperate in some way with this raid - and indeed some reports coming out now indicating that the copter that crashed was in fact Pakistani, not American - also reports coming in that American troops didn't rope in but rather breached a wall while a helo hovered overhead supplying fire support. Indications troops ferried in on Chinook, not Blackhawks, which if true would seem to guarantee Pakistan involved because no way you're moving a Chinook into a highly defended area like that without someone noticing.
Again, there are several good reasons to wonder about the role Pakistan played here, both in the operation and possibly their protecting Osama all these years - but right now I'm merely interested in the fact of how the press immediately started painting Obama as a 'great leader' in authorizing this raid by focusing mainly on dubious assertion that Pakistan wasn't in on it and therefore the mission was fraught with dangers if it failed or otherwise went awry - in fact CNN has an op-ed up stating how this makes Obama's leadership now unassailable - but if Pakistan was in on this the decision was actually quite easy to make since many of the 'dangerous' variables would have been removed - not suggesting of course it was a walk in the park - but neither, assuming Pakistani cooperation, was it the most daring covert op ever - which is how the MSM is clearly trying to paint it for the sake of glorifying Obama.
Don't know why my first thought was this - probably cause I realize it is indeed a victory for Obama no matter how contrived his connection to it is - and the slavish way the press rushes to milk this victory is galling - suppose I should get over though, kind of petty - although fact remains OBL's death not really that important, satisfying sure, but not important - he passed on leadership of AQ to youthful subordinates several years ago - he was essentially in retirement and waiting no doubt for this end which he probably saw as inevitable - the real story remains: has Pakistan known where he was all along? why give him up now - ie, did the CIA finally track him down and give them an ultimatum? or has some deal been struck about other things? what will the fallout be if the cover story doesn't hold? is it possible the harboring of OBL was an independent operation run by Pakistani intelligence services without gov't knowledge? if so, what would that mean? and finally, impact on war in Afghanistan: make things worse? better? provide the pretext for Obama to get the hell out?
update: still few details but lots of questions. If Pakistan cooperated, why then a risky helicopter insertion? Deniability, possibly - but roping in from some Blackhawks at night while under fire isn't easy - would we be willing to risk that in order to supply cover story for Pakistan? Not impossible I guess, but if Pakistan was cooperating some sort of ground assault seems in order - but of course there'd be no denying complicity then. The compound was nestled into a relatively nice neighborhood [for Pakistan] just down the road from a military installation in a town where Pakistani military officers go to retire - plus, the compound looked like a place that was obviously trying to hide something - how could the Pakistani military or Pakistani security services really not be in on this? Did the CIA find proof of duplicity on part of Pakistan while uncovering Osama's whereabouts and that's why we went in without letting them know? Fact is, no one knows how many similar operations of this type have happened and we never heard about them because they came up empty - Pakistan would have no reason to advertise such by complaining about it publicly. Still, hard to see how you move noisy helicopters that far inland through fairly militarized areas and not run into some opposition - seems a bit improbable, especially when you add in fact one of the helos was lost - I mean, how did the crew and troops on that chopper manage to exfil on what would have been a very overloaded remaining chopper? Seems likely another chopper was called in or had been standing by for just such a purpose - is it really possible all that happened and choppers managed to make the long trip back to Afghanistan without the Pakistani air force or air defenses ever being alerted? We're not talking stealthy F-22s here whirling off into the night at mach 2 - we're talking very unstealthy and relatively slow moving helicopters. Seems impossible - but then again I really have no idea what capabilities JSOC has so may indeed be completely feasible.
update: apparently area where compound was located was in a highly controlled air defense corridor - in other words, very unlikely Pakistan did not cooperate in some way with this raid - and indeed some reports coming out now indicating that the copter that crashed was in fact Pakistani, not American - also reports coming in that American troops didn't rope in but rather breached a wall while a helo hovered overhead supplying fire support. Indications troops ferried in on Chinook, not Blackhawks, which if true would seem to guarantee Pakistan involved because no way you're moving a Chinook into a highly defended area like that without someone noticing.
Again, there are several good reasons to wonder about the role Pakistan played here, both in the operation and possibly their protecting Osama all these years - but right now I'm merely interested in the fact of how the press immediately started painting Obama as a 'great leader' in authorizing this raid by focusing mainly on dubious assertion that Pakistan wasn't in on it and therefore the mission was fraught with dangers if it failed or otherwise went awry - in fact CNN has an op-ed up stating how this makes Obama's leadership now unassailable - but if Pakistan was in on this the decision was actually quite easy to make since many of the 'dangerous' variables would have been removed - not suggesting of course it was a walk in the park - but neither, assuming Pakistani cooperation, was it the most daring covert op ever - which is how the MSM is clearly trying to paint it for the sake of glorifying Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)