Category Archives: Terrorism

Killing or Capturing bin Laden

Posted on by

An article in the October 2012 edition of the ABA Journal titled “Detention Dilemma” describes legal problems created by continuing to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba. One very interesting part of the article is an argument whether “…the balance between gaining detainee intelligence and the high cost of defending detention decisions has precipitated a shift away from detentions and toward targeted killings.” The article then says, “Taking the judge at her word–that the high court hinted at the need for more killings–would be profoundly unsettling.”

The official policy seems to have accepted the “hint” given by the high court. We are killing terrorists with drones instead of trying to capturing them. Another point for that argument is given by the accounts of the night bin Laden was killed. Those accounts lead me to believe there was no intention of taking him captive. He was said to have been killed when he raised a hand and his rifle was nearby. Continue reading →

The Benghazi Talking Points

Posted on by

Steve Hayes wrote an excellent article in the Weekly Standard about the editing of reports describing the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed the ambassador and three other Americans. The was obviously done to make the narrative “politically acceptable” to the  administration during a Presidential election campaign. Click on the link if you want to be informed about the story. I expect there will be more information revealed as additional journalists decide they have to put aside their desire to protect President Obama and actually perform as journalists. If you chose to read this postings you will find that I consider the most important question that has not been asked is what did the Commander-In-Chief know and what did he do.   Continue reading →

Wasp

Posted on by

waspThis is a book I’ve always remembered reading with fascination as a youngster. I recently obtained “Entities, the Selected Novels of Eric Frank Russell” on an interlibrary loan that included that novel. The book was written in 1957, the year I began my junior year in high school. A review on Amazon says it is probably Russell’s best known novel. It is the story of James Mowry who is asked to be an agent behind enemy lines in Earth’s war with the Sirian Combine. He is asked to be like the wasp in the car that stings the driver and causes the car to crash. The novel was nominated for the 1998 Prometheus Hall of Fame award.

Terry Pratchett said he couldn’t imagine “…a funnier terrorists’ handbook,” although I didn’t see that much humor in the book. The central theme is that an enemy can be greatly harmed by psychological and guerrilla warfare by a small, deadly protagonist. I think the book is pertinent because of the huge impact being made on the U.S. and the world by relatively small groups of terrorists dedicated and willing to die for a cause (which is why I’m breaking my usual habit of reviewing nonfiction books).

The introduction by Jack L. Chalker describes Russell as being a science fiction/fantasy writer preceding WWII. Russell worked in the British office of naval intelligence section call XX, or double cross. His group, which included the author of the future “James Bond” books, Ian Fleming, was to think of inexpensive ways to harm the Japanese and Germans and diminish their military capabilities. He put together the book as a blueprint for wartime terrorism. It is interesting that the Japanese secret police was called Temperikai and that the author named the secret police of the enemy planet Kaitemperi. Continue reading →

Drones versus Water Boarding

Posted on by

President Obama has won reelection, so it seems appropriate to revisit the politically sensitive question about the treatment of “terrorist prisoners.” First and foremost, it seems the policy of refusing to use the term “terrorism” resulted in the Obama administration putting out false information about what happened in Libya. I’ve read that there was an official policy issued to the State Department after Mr. Obama’s first election that they were not allowed to use the words “terrorism” or “terrorist.” Perhaps that’s why the term “spontaneous riot” was used in the misleading reports. I speculate the desire to not have a national security scandal just before the election also had something to do with it.

What changes to national security policies will we see now that Mr. Obama is safely re-elected? Perhaps we will now what he had in mind when he was recorded telling the Russians he would “have more flexibility” after the election. I’m also wondering whether the policy of targeting terrorists (perhaps he calls them “rioters”) with drones will be continued. It is reported that he meets with a select group of military, national security, intelligence, and political advisors each Tuesday morning to review a list of enemies called the “kill list.” He is then said to personally decide who is to be killed by a drone. The CIA probably operates the drone, because federal law would require public reporting and congressional approval if the military is involved. Drone strikes have killed people in Pakistan and Yemen. Of course people who have misfortune to be near the targeted person are also killed. Continue reading →

Blood Stripes

Posted on by

This is the best book I’ve read for some time. The descriptions of experiences of four non-commissioned officers in the Iraq war were informative and deeply emotional for me. I’ve read some of the Amazon reviews. There were a few complaints about writing style, but I don’t agree. The writing engaged me and made me feel connected to the experiences of the warriors described in the book.

The first learning experience for me was the origin of the title, and I was confused until I searched “Blood Stripes” and found a photo on Wikipedia. The “Blood Stripe” is a red stripe (varying in width, depending on rank) that runs down the outer leg of the dress uniform of noncommissioned and commissioned officers of the Marines. The “Blood Stripe” is described as being a tribute to the unusually high casualty rate of Marine noncommissioned officers and officers during the Battle of Chapultepec in Mexico in 1847.

The learning certainly didn’t stop with descriptions of Marine uniforms. The “Author’s Notes” tells me that “…Iraq is an Arabic word, (and) the English equivalent has no proper pronunciation: the closest would be ‘eee-rock’.” The word derives from the Arabic urug, which means “root.” Adding a letter from the Arabic alphabet arrives at the translation “Root of All.”

Much of the book is about the warrior culture of the Marines, and the first chapter is titled, “Go Tell the Spartans.” The quote immediately after that title is “I think the Army is much more connected to society than the Marines are. The Marines are extremists.” Recruiters for other military services promise education benefits, the possibility of world travel, and excellent retirement benefits for those who stay long enough. The Marines were and are promised intense physical training that many will not be strong enough or have enough stamina to withstand. They are promised that if they could make it through training they are likely to have multiple deployments to live in primitive and very uncomfortable places where other people were trying to kill them. The book “Gates of Fire” by Steven Pressfield about the Spartans who all died together at Thermopylae is described as the unofficial Marine Bible. Marines are promised they will be expected to fight and die together like the Spartans. The Marines described in the book dealt with the risk of death by considering that they already knew they were going to die, although the men did worry about masculinity-ending injuries. The only time fear seemed to be prevalent was when the time was approaching for their departure.

Marines acknowledged that they understood they were joining to learn how to kill legally, and craved the “thrill of battle.” Winston Churchill was quoted as saying, “There is nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed.” Mostly they were inspired by the brotherhood of soldiers fighting beside one another. That inspired their “gung-ho” attitude, despite the fact that phrase originated with a Chinese expression that means “all together.” Some readers would undoubtedly be put off by descriptions of satisfaction from seeing the “pink mist” created when a bullet passes through the body of an enemy.

There is an interesting footnote that the Continental Congress ordered Samuel Nicholas to organize two battalions of Marines on November 10, 1775. Nicholas began his recruiting in Philadelphia’s Tun Tavern. “Marines are very proud that the Corps was born in a bar.”

The book describes the language of Marines. Discussions with one another would often be considered coarsely obscene and degrading to an outsider. I recall one fire team leader thinking he should compliment his team after an especially intense day of combat. He told them, “Y’all used o be a bunch of girls, but now you’re women.” Quotes from several movies make it into the conversations of Marines preparing for battle. One was Mel Gibson’s line in Braveheart, “At least we don’t get dressed up for nutin’.”

The first assignment of the Marines in this book was guarding “national strategic assets” at a Naval Submarine Base at Bangor Washington, home of several Trident missile submarines. The Marines “…could neither confirm nor deny that they guarded those assets.” The Marines were mostly bored and disappointed with the assignment. They were asked whether they were willing to go kill “rag heads” in what promised to be a long war. The four corporals featured in the book all raised their hands.

The book focuses on what it takes to become a Lance corporal in the Marines, which is the lowest rank authorized to wear blood stripes on the slacks of the dress uniform. “Lance corporals excel through alpha male characteristics of strength, cleverness, skill, and force of personality.” There is no doubt there are few who could meet all the requirements.

The enemies in Iraq were called “Muj,” short for Muhajideen. Friendly Iraqis were called “hajji.” The Marines were there to win the hearts “…of the hajjis while killing every Muj they could find. Separating Muj from hajji was the hard part.” There is one description of a raid on an Iraqi police station that found large amounts of the weapons and outfits worn by the Muj. There was a prolonged battle between the Marines and Muj in the area with hundreds killed. It was observed there were many fewer policemen after the battle. There was one ambush that involved insurgents firing at the Marines from two buildings opposite each other. The Marines under this intense ambush described it as a “Polish ambush,” since anyone with common sense would not position soldiers shooting across a street at one another.

The Marines had an interesting manner of dealing with Improvised Explosive Devices, or IEDs that were planted by insurgents. If they suspected something was an IED they would kick it hard, hoping that the force of the kick would disable the device. They noted a Harrier war plane making a bombing approach a hundred feet in the air set off numerous IEDs. The Marines then often requested low flybys by Harriers before patrolling down a street.

The daily routines of the Marine were as interesting as the descriptions of the many intense battles. The Marines rated the quality of their quarters based on the quality of privies, which ranged from “luxurious” air conditioned units to basic stinking latrines. They loved the Lamisil cream used to treat the abrasions created from wearing heavy equipment for days in the oppressive daytime heat and the frigid nights that caused them to need to spoon together to retain precious body heat. Alcohol wasn’t accessible to grunt units, so they depended on Motrin, caffeine, and nicotine. They mostly depended on one another.

I recommend this book to all adult readers; I believe it would be particularly interesting to people who never served in the military.

Ending the Iraq War: A Primer

Posted on by

I previously reviewed the book “The Good Soldiers” by David Finkel about an infantry battalion that was part of the surge, and that led me to read a book that gives the anti-Iraq war perspective. This book by Phyllis Bennis certainly fits that description. There are quotes from a report by the National institute for Strategic Studies describing the war as creating “…an incubator for terrorism.” I may have chosen poorly, since the book has not had a single review posted on Amazon.

I attempt in my reviews to let authors tell their side of the story without editorial comment and then post disagreements in a posting on the blog link. There were sections that gave me difficulty complying with that approach. The book does contain interesting information about the history of Iraq and its ethnic diversity.

I thought using “frequently asked questions” to introduce discussion was a good approach. One question was, “Didn’t the ‘surge’ strategy work?” General Petraeus’s reported that the surge was working. The author disagreed, writing that the reduction in violence in Iraq came from the unilaterally declared ceasefire by Moqtada al-Sadar and his Mahdi Army militia and also because of payments given to Sunni militias in exchange for them not targeting US and UK occupation troops. Violence spiked in 2008 when Prime Minister Maliki ordered an attack on Sadr’s militia in Basra. Large numbers of Iraqi soldiers and police defected to Sadr. Iran arranged a ceasefire between the two Shi’a forces.

Many of the conflicts are between the Sunnis and Shi’a (most books use the term Shiite) militias. Sunnis Arabs make up 15-20 percent of the population and were disproportionally privileged in wealth and power in Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party. Shi’as are 55-60 percent of the population. The Kurds are primarily Sunnis.The Kurds have been protected by the US and are the most supportive of US policy. (There are an estimated 30 million Kurds in the world, and they are often named as the largest ethnic group without a state of their own.) Some have tried to make people think of themselves as Iraqis instead of Sunni, Shi’a, or Kurd, but with little success. One fact that is not in dispute is that there are fewer Iraqis in the country because of the war. An estimated two million Iraqis fled mostly to Jordan and Syria.

The borders of Middle East countries were established by “…the French-British trading schemes…” Faisal was appointed by the British to be king in 1921, and his son and grandson succeeded him. Faisal II was overthrown in a revolution against the monarchy in 1958. The Ba’athist government was officially secular but dominated by Sunnis. The book mentions that the CIA “…helped orchestrate the coup…” Saddam Hussein took control in 1968.

There are criticisms of several U.S. politicians to include Henry Kissinger, who developed and funded a plan for Iraqi Kurds to launch an uprising against Baghdad to weaken Iraq in its war against Iran. The Kurds were abandoned and were overrun by the Iraqi military after the war. Kissinger was said to have commented “…covert work should not be confused with missionary work.” President Clinton is criticized for claiming the U.S. was required by the UN to enforce the “no fly zone.” No UN resolution mentions creation or enforcement of such zones. All politicians arguing whether Iraq should be divided in three parts or united are said to be “…rooted in a set of thoroughly colonial assumptions about who has the ‘right’ to impose their will on Iraq and Iraqis from outside.”

The book frequently mentions “lie after lie” by the Bush administration in advocating the start of the war. Specifics include weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons programs, uranium yellowcake in Niger, Iraqi links to al-Qaeda, and Iraqi involvement in 9/11. There is a question whether U.S. actions brought a constitution to Iraq. There was a constitution adopted in 2005, but it was drafted mostly by U.S. lawyers under contract to the State Department.

The question “What war crimes have been committed in Iraq?” begins with bombing civilian targets and a long list of other actions designated as war crimes during the Operation Desert Storm in 1991. The twelve years of economic sanctions that followed were said to have resulted in the death of half a million Iraqi children. Secretary of State Madeline Albright infamously replied to a question about the children, “We think the price is worth it.” The invasion of Iraq is characterized “…as what the Nuremberg principles identify as the worst war crime: a crime against peace in the form of a war of aggression.” The “…congressional authorization passed in November 2002 granting Bush permission to go to war…” did not make the invasion legal.

Part II of the book presents the Bush administration’s arguments for the war and, in the opinion of the author, dispels them. The war is said to have increased recruitment of terrorists instead of making us safer. Iraq had carefully controlled borders before the war, but the U.S. demobilized the border guards. “Iraq has been transformed into a gathering place…for global terrorists…” The author says the real reasons the U.S. wanted a war were, “…oil, power, and ideology.” There are lengthy discussions that oil was main objective. There is a sarcastic comment in a couple of places that Americans seem to think the invading troops would be welcomed “…with sweets and flowers and singing in the streets.”

Part III discusses global effects of the Iraq war. The brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein was ruthlessly secular and not a safe place for fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. Iraq now “…is global center stage for a concentrated host of terrorist forces.” The war has “…accelerated recruitment for al-Qaeda.”

There is an interesting discussion of how many Shi’a sought refuge in Iran during Saddam Hussein’s rule, and many of those have now returned to Iraq. Iran was one of the first countries in the region to recognize the government of Maliki, and one of the few to maintain full diplomatic relations. The other powerful Iraqi Shi’a, al-Sadr, spends much of his time in Iran “…burnishing his religious credentials…”

Part IV is about ending the war, and I don’t intend to spend much time with that since U.S. combat troops were withdrawn in December 2011 after the book was published. The author directs strong criticism toward the U.S. Congress which “…essentially abdicated its constitutional responsibility to declare or reject war in 2002 when it gave the Bush administration the power to decide whether to go to war against Iraq. Congress could have ended the war at any time by refusing to vote supplemental war funding bills out of committee.

See the posting on the blog link for an update about current events in Iraq.