Why the latest government hack is worse than the Snowden affair

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director Katherine Archuleta testifies on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. (Cliff Owen/Associated Press

When you read about the recent hack of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in which China is thought to have filched millions of security clearance application forms, you might have shrugged your shoulders. Just another hack, right? No big deal, right? Wrong. This cyber burglary is an even greater intelligence catastrophe than the Edward Snowden affair. And our negligent leaders, bureaucracies and their contractors need to be held responsible.

When I applied for my security clearance in 2010, as I was preparing to work with the U.S. Army in Afghanistan as a social scientist, I filled out a long form called an SF-86. Practically everyone with a federal government security clearance knows this document. It takes a lot of time to complete and requires in-depth disclosures of a very personal nature. My SF-86 contains my Social Security number, information about my credit history, my job history (including a dispute with a past employer), contact information for my closest friends and family in the United States and abroad, all non-Americans with whom I am close, a list of every foreign official I ever met, every place I lived and people who could verify that I lived there, and much more. If I had ever been arrested or had any history of drug abuse, I would have had to report that, too.

So you can understand my frustration when I discovered that China had likely hacked the OPM and two of its contractors and made off with at least 4 million SF-86s on former, current and prospective U.S. government workers.

Beyond narrow concerns about identity theft, think about the national security implications.

Via: Washington Post

Continue Reading.....

Military watchdog to re-open probe of $34M facility built in Afghanistan but never used

The independent auditor who postponed a probe into a $34 million "white elephant" of a military facility the Pentagon built in Afghanistan over objections from top leaders is reopening his investigation.

Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John Sopko delayed his initial probe last summer, after the Pentagon vowed to investigate why millions were apparently wasted on the hulking headquarters at Camp Leatherneck in southwestern Afghanistan. But Sopko said defense officials have not addressed concerns he initially raised, leaving him no choice but to restart his inquiry.

“Following delivery of my July letter, I was advised that an investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding construction of the building was ongoing, and upon its completion answers to my questions would be forthcoming,” Sopko wrote Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and other military heads. “Accordingly, I delayed my investigation of this matter assuming a speedy and fulsome review by your staff.”

But all Sopko said he ever got from the Pentagon was documents regarding an Army probe of the 64,000-square-foot building, which he said "raises additional questions, and has prompted my decision to restart SIGAR’s investigation.”

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Obama reportedly to pen letter to Afghan people admitting 'mistakes,' as part of security deal

U.S. and Afghan officials reportedly have reached a tentative agreement on a critical security pact -- which would include President Obama writing a letter to the Afghan people acknowledging mistakes during the "war on terror." 

According to Reuters, an Afghan spokesman said Tuesday that Obama agreed to write the letter, to be presented with the draft security pact at a meeting of tribal elders later this week. 

The New York Times, citing a spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, reported that Secretary of State John Kerry proposed the letter in a conversation with Karzai. 

Karzai asked that Obama sign it, and Kerry reportedly agreed. The letter apparently helped them reach a tentative deal authorizing U.S. raids on Afghan homes in certain circumstances, which had been an area of disagreement. 

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, at Tuesday's daily press briefing in Washington, would not confirm or deny the letter when asked by Fox News. 

"We don't comment on presidential correspondence," he said. 

Via: Fox News Political

Continue Reading......

7 first-class passengers give up seats to Marines returning from Afghanistan

Fourteen Marines on their way home from serving in Afghanistan were upgraded to first class on their flight from Chicago to San Diego.

The Marines learned that American Airlines - which has a policy to upgrade servicemen and women in uniform whenever possible - had six empty seats in first class for the group. That gesture was followed by seven first-class passengers who jumped out of their seats for the other Marines so they could sit together.

"It was incredibly touching," Capt. Pravin Rajan said in a telephone interview from Camp Pendleton in California. "Afghanistan is a very complex and ambiguous war ... and a difficult thing to keep track of so it is amazing when we are 10 years (into) a war and there is still that kind of community, that level of support, the level of willingness to go out of one's way."

The welcome home started with a phone call. Stephanie Hare, a native of Illinois who now works in England, called the USO at O'Hare and explained that her fiance, Rajan, who had served seven months in Afghanistan, was with a dozen other Marines on a plane bound for Chicago from Baltimore.

"I just thought if they could get them some Chicago pizza, champagne or something, that would mean a lot," she said.

On the other end of the line was John Colas, a 74-year-old former Marine USO volunteer. He told Hare he'd try to do something in the hour or so before the flight landed. But he cautioned that while volunteers make an effort to welcome military personnel whenever they come through the airport, he wasn't sure he could pull anything off in such a short time.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading.....

Shutdown outrage: Military death benefits denied to families of fallen troops

At least five families of U.S. military members killed during in Afghanistan over the weekend were given a double-whammy by federal officials: Not only have your loved ones died, but due to the government shutdown, you won’t receive a death benefit.

The benefit is $100,000 and is wired to family members of the killed military member within 36 hours of the death. The so-called “death gratuity” is aimed at paying for funeral costs and to help with those living expenses normally covered by the soldier’s paycheck.

---

PHOTOS: A salute to America's warriors on the front lines of the war on terror

---

They serve as a transition pay benefit until the military’s survivor benefits begin.

The $100,000 also helps military families fly to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, while the coffins carrying their loved ones are being unloaded

The Pentagon revealed the elimination of funeral pay, along with other impacts of the shutdown, in a press release.

“The department does not currently have the authority to pay death gratuities for the survivors of service members killed in action – typically a cash payment of $100,000 paid within three days of the death of a service member,” the release read.

Via: Washington Times

Continue Reading....

The 12-Year War: 73% of U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan on Obama's Watch

(CNSNews.com) - Twelve years ago today, nineteen al Qaeda terrorists hijacked four U.S. commercial airliners and flew them into the World Trade Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.

In the war that Congress authorized against al Qaeda only three days after that attack, the vast majority of the U.S. casualties have occurred in the last four and a half years during the presidency of Barack Obama.

In fact, according to the CNSNews.com database of U.S. casualties in Afghanistan, 73 percent of all U.S. Afghan War casualties have occurred since Jan. 20, 2009 when Obama was inaugurated.

The 91 U.S. casualties in Afghanistan so far in 2013 are more than those that occurred in the first two full calendar years of the war (2002 and 2003) combined, when 30 and 31 U.S. troops were killed there.

On Sept. 14, 2001, Congress approved a resolution authorizing the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”

CNS News

Continue Reading....

Cheney Takes Flamethrower To Obama

AP

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was honored tonight at the Hudson Institute’s 2012 Herman Khan Award Dinner at the Pierre Hotel in New York City.  Cheney was introduced by Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who spoke in detail about Cheney’s life and accomplishments, joking about how Cheney twice flunked out of Yale, and joking about Cheney’s hunting incident.  In his remarks Cheney was harshly critical of President Obama and the administration’s policy in the Mideast.  He said he’s very, very concerned about what he sees developing day by day.  He detailed the history of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, and what has been done to fight terror and said the Middle East is a very, very dangerous part of the world. 

He said that when he hears our president announce that we got Bin Laden and we can “pivot” to Asia he is on the one hand “appalled” and on the other hand fears for future developments.  Cheney said that that entire part of the world appears to be moving in a direction fundamentally hostile to U.S. interests, and that the U.S. is increasingly unable to influence events in that part of the world, seemingly because we’re “headed for the exit.”  He was critical of reductions in Afghanistan, and mentioned President Obama’s trip to Cairo where he “apologized” for the U.S. reaction after 9/11.  Cheney referenced the serious economic problems in the U.S but said he is concerned about the Middle East. 

He said our allies no longer trust us and our enemies no longer fear us.  He was highly critical of President Obama on Syria and basically said he has grave doubts the president will take any actions besides hope.  He continued to say the national security threat is as serious as the economic one, and said that enormous damage is being done to the U.S. military with cuts.  Toward the end of his remarks he said we can be absolutely certain that there are people out there planning to attack us, only with deadlier weapons than 19 hijackers and boxcutters.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading...

MSNBC President: 'This Channel Has Never Been the Voice of Obama. Ever.'

In an interview with the Huffington Post, MSNBC president Phil Griffin tries to push back against the notion that his channel has become a mouth-piece for President Barack Obama.

"This channel has never been the voice of Obama. Ever," Griffin tells Michael Calderone of the Huffington Post.  But, Calderone writes, "Griffin acknowledges that his hosts are more likely to agree with Obama on policy matters than with Republicans, but rejects comparisons to Fox News."

"People want to talk about Fox. Fox is the voice of the Republican Party," says Griffin to Calderone.

Griffin does, however, acknowledge to the left-leaningHuffington Post that many folks working at MSNBC have a "progressive sensibility."

"We hire smart people with a progressive sensibility. ... I tell them to go think for themselves. We don't have talking points," says Griffin.

The MSNBC president pledges to make sure Obama keeps "his campaign promises."

"We're going to hold Obama to his campaign promises," says Griffin. "And the fact is, there are many things that some of our hosts support him on. But basically, we have a standard, whether it's the war on terror or getting out of Afghanistan: Is he going to live up to his campaign promises?"

And Griffin compliments his employees for being "really smart" and not going "over the top" during the 2012 presidential campaign.

"What I really believe is we analyzed this election in a really smart way and we didn't go over the top,"Griffin tells Huffington Post. "We weren't just shilling for Obama. We were really smart. And people are responding to that now."

Via: Weekly Standard

Continue Reading...

Tingles Accuses Sarah Palin Of “Dog Whistle” Racism For Saying “Shuck And Jive”…

Liberal cable anchor Chris Matthews, who in 2010 used the phrase "shuck and jive," on Wednesday assailed Sarah Palin as racist for using the phrase "shuck and jive." Referring to a Facebook post the former Alaska governor wrote about Obama and Libya, Matthews ranted, "You know, a dog whistle is a dog whistle...A trumpet call is another."

The MSNBC host insisted that "shuck and jive" has "a particular ethnic connection" and "to throw it at the president as an ethnic shot is pretty blatant." On July 7, 2010, Matthews, while talking to Rachel Maddow and her visit to Afghanistan, wondered, "What has it been like, as you shuck and jive, hang out with the men over there, the women over there, in uniform risking their lives every day?" The late Tim Russert also used the term on July 18, 2003.

In 2008, then-Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said of Barack Obama: "You can't shuck and jive at a press conference." Steve McMahon, a Hardball regular, talked to then-MSNBC host Tucker Carlson and demurred, "Well, that's not the way I would have put it."

On September 7, 2011, Jay Carney, a spokesman for Matthews' beloved Obama, told the press corps, "Sorry. I'm going to shuck and jive! Time to shuck and jive."

Palin entitled her Facebook post, "Obama's shuck and jive ends with Benghazi lies."

On Wednesday, Hardball guest Jonathan Alter, a former Newsweek editor, railed against Palin, "...Shuck and jive, that's like talking about watermelon... for Jews, talking about Jews are greedy or the Irish are drunk."

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading...

Draw Down, Back Down Obama to push come-home foreign policy in debate

President Barack Obama is pushing an isolationist return-to-home foreign policy in his latest TV attack-ad, entitled “Rebuilding.”

Obama will likely push that theme during Monday’s foreign-policy debate, partly because support for the anti-jihad campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have fallen further — especially among late-deciding swing voters — since Obama took office in 2009.

“Obama ended the Iraq war. Mitt Romney would have kept 30,000 troops there, and called bringing them home ‘tragic,’” says the 32-second ad.

“Obama has brought 30,000 soldiers back from Afghanistan, and has a responsible plan to end the war. … It is time to stop fighting over there, and start rebuilding here,” the ad concludes.

The ad does not say if the president wants to win the Afghanistan campaign, which began after al-Qaida’s jihadis used Afghanistan to launch the Sept. 11 attack on New York.

Obama pulled troops out of Iraq in 2011 after Iraq leaders declined a proposed long-term strategic deal. The draft deal, however, collapsed after Obama said the proposed U.S. back-force in Iraq had to be fewer than 4,000 troops.

The withdrawal came after U.S. forces had won a hard-fought to campaign to cripple the various groups that were attacking the elected Iraqi government.

Since then, Iraq’s government has come under increasing pressure from the radical leadership in neighboring Iran.

Via: The Daily Caller

Continue Reading...

Third debate could be dated before it’s over

President Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney will meet for the third and final presidential debate Monday night to discuss foreign policy. It is a broad topic that was sidelined in the first debate on domestic issues and engendered only one question at the candidate's subsequent tete-a-tete, a town-hall meeting.

At last, we will hear the candidates' uninterrupted views on America's security. The debate's topics have already been disclosed by moderator Bob Schieffer. They include the usual cast of ominous characters: the long war in Afghanistan, the red lines of Iran and Israel, the rising power of China, and the changing Middle East. Another query, on ”America's role in the world,” could be a softball or a snoozer, but might also be quite revealing.

Nonetheless, the night may not be greeted with the rapt attention that attended the other two. The foreign policy debate is fighting an uphill battle for relevance not only because of the condition of our economy, the fight over our taxes, and the looming fiscal cliff. It is because, for those who remember other recent debates on international affairs, the gap between what was asked and what the winning candidate actually faced as president has been wide.

A candidate's policy towards Iran, Afghanistan, or China will have to share center stage with the unpredicted, the incidental, and the utterly dramatic once he becomes president or wins a second term. The stylized theatrics of a debate stand in sharp contrast to the randomness of the world.

”I am not going to make unilateral cuts in our strategic defense systems or support some freeze when they 1 / 8the Soviet Union 3 / 8 have superiority. I'm not going to do that, because I think the jury is still out on the Soviet experiment,” Vice President George H. W. Bush stated on Sep. 25, 1988, when he faced Governor Michael Dukakis. The jury would soon rule; the Berlin Wall fell just over a year later. Eastern Europeans realized they were being governed by a spent ideology and weak captor. The Soviet empire would dissolve by the end of Bush's presidency. Strategic defense debates were replaced by diplomatic challenges in a new, open Europe.

Via: Heraldonline.com

Continue Reading...

Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/10/20/4351191/third-debate-could-be-dated-before.html#storylink=cpy

BIDEN GRUNTS, GUFFAWS, SMIRKS AND BULLIES HIS WAY THROUGH VP DEBATE

Did Joe Biden bring in Al Gore as his debate coach? Did he review the tape from the Bush-Gore debate in 2000 and think obnoxious interruptions and smirks on questions of national security are the way to move voters? He sighed. He broke into Ryan's answers. He chortled. His actual answers were the least of his problems. His tone and demeanor were beneath the office he currently holds. 

Paul Ryan was fine. And, I mean that in the most literal use of the term. A snap CNN poll found that Ryan won the debate, 48-44. It wasn't the decisive mauling that Romney delivered to Obama, but it was enough to sustain Romney's momentum. At times, I wished Ryan had been more aggressive in defending his time to speak. Biden left some whoppers on the table that went unanswered. 

That said, Ryan gave forceful, passionate answers to several questions and his closing was especially strong. He had a firm command of the situation in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan. Most voters only know him as a budget guy, so his command of these issues was probably a pleasant surprise. There was nothing in his performance that would suggest he wasn't up to the job of being Vice-President. 

Biden though, was beneath his office. He clearly carried the weight of the campaign's recent stumbles on his shoulder. In the first hour, he acted like a man would had downed a six-pack of Red Bull before taking the stage. By the debate's end, the sugar rush had clearly worn off and his speech was much slower and more deliberate. The frenetic pace is better for him, because you can't pay as much attention to each word he says. As he slows up, the utter absurdity of what he's saying becomes more clear. 

Both Biden and Ryan had decent moments. In the end, Biden lost for two reasons. Ryan came off as an earnest and utterly reasonable person, with substantive ideas on a range of issues. He was likable. Biden's biggest problem, though, was his tone. He was rude, abusive and dismissive. He repeatedly smirked while Ryan was prosecuting the Administration's missteps in Libya. Smirking should be the furthest thing from anyone's mind when four Americans have been murdered. 

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Byron York Column: Liberals Fret: Is Obama Bored? Does He Want A Second Term? Maybe Not

There’s no doubt President Obama’s liberal supporters are worried by his lackluster performance in the Denver debate.  “Everyone is in shock,” one show-business liberal told the Hollywood reporter.  “No one can understand what happened.”  The Obama faithful are offering the White House advice, talking points, pep talks — anything to improve the president’s performance when he next faces Mitt Romney at Hofstra University on October 16.

But for some liberal writers, the concern goes deeper.  Perhaps Obama’s somewhat withdrawn demeanor at the debate was an indication that he doesn’t even want a second term as president.

On the morning after the debate, The Atlantic ran an analysis headlined, “Snippy Obama, Whose Heart’s Not In It.”  Writer Garance Franke-Ruta suggested that Obama, as an unusually sensitive man, has been worn down by the presidency’s demands of conducting war in Afghanistan and dealing with crises like the murder of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya.  “His supporters keep wanting Obama to be who he was in 2008,” Franke-Ruta wrote.  “But that’s not who he is anymore.” Obama’s old enthusiasm for the job is simply gone.

Now, in the Daily Beast, liberal writer Michael Tomasky asks, “Does Obama Even Want to Win the Election?”  After poor Obama showings at the debate, the Democratic convention, and a high-profile “60 Minutes” interview, Tomasky writes, “Someone needs to ask the cut-to-the-chase question: is he enthusiastic about keeping this job, or he is just maybe tired of being president?”

Perhaps he is.  If so, there were certainly signs long before Wednesday night in Denver.  A look at the president’s career shows he has never stayed in a job four years without looking to move on to something.

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading...

Report: Soldiers Urged Not To Engage Taliban At Night So Sleeping Locals Are Not Disturbed

Reports indicate U.S. soldiers and British Royal Marines have been urged to show "courageous constraint" by not shooting Taliban members spotted planting IEDs.

The reason? Shooting them might disturb the locals.

This news comes out on the heels of an investigation into the death of Royal Marine Sergeant Peter Rayner, whom witnesses say watched the Taliban plant IEDs at night but was ordered not to engage them. Families of other soldiers and Royal Marines are telling stories of how their loved ones were not allowed to use mortars or night illumination when they came across Taliban members in an area full of IEDs. 

The reason given was that "the sound of shooting 'might wake up and upset the locals.'"

This is not "courageous restraint" -- this is appeasement.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Exclusive: President Obama Considered Putting Osama bin Laden on Trial if Taken Alive

Report: Biden The Only Obama Adviser To Oppose Bin Laden Raid…

In an adaptation from his new book, The Finish—first reported for Vanity Fair—magazine contributing editor Mark Bowden reveals that President Obama intended to put Osama bin Laden on trial in the federal court system if he had been captured, rather than killed, during the Abbottabad raid. Bowden had access to key players including top national-security officials and the president himself.

According to Bowden in the story—in November’s Vanity Fair—in the unlikely event that bin Laden surrendered, Obama saw an opportunity to resurrect the idea of a criminal trial, which Attorney General Eric Holder had planned for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This time, the president tells Bowden, he was prepared to bring bin Laden back and put him on trial in a federal court. “We worked through the legal and political issues that would have been involved, and Congress and the desire to send him to Guantánamo, and to not try him, and Article III.” Obama continues: “I mean, we had worked through a whole bunch of those scenarios. But, frankly, my belief was if we had captured him, that I would be in a pretty strong position, politically, here, to argue that displaying due process and rule of law would be our best weapon against al-Qaeda, in preventing him from appearing as a martyr.”

President Obama tells Bowden that he was aware of the possibility that “The Pacer”—as the team called the figure captured on surveillance video regularly walking around the Abbottabad compound’s vegetable garden—“was some warlord from Afghanistan who had set up shop, the possibility that this was a drug dealer from the Gulf who valued his privacy or had a mistress or a second family.” He also understood that The Pacer might be exactly who they thought he was. Obama had never bought the line that bin Laden “was living an ascetic life somewhere, in some mountain somewhere.”

Bowden describes Situation Room meetings where the team presented the president with wildly varying odds. “People don’t have differences because they have different intel,” Morell, who had been personally involved in the flawed analysis of Saddam’s weapons capability, explains. “We are all looking at the same things. I think it depends more on your past experience.” He continues: “If we had a human source who had told us directly that bin Laden was living in that compound, I still wouldn’t be above 60 percent. And I’m telling you, the case for W.M.D. wasn’t just stronger—it was much stronger.” As Bowden reports, Obama’s conclusion was that the odds were 50-50. “This is a flip of the coin. You guys, I can’t base this decision on the notion that we have any greater certainty than that,” the president said.

Via: Vanity Fair

Continue Reading...

Polls Show Romney Crushing Obama Among Veterans In Key Battleground States…

Veterans retreating from Barack Obama

President Barack Obama is trying hard to win veterans, but it looks like they’d prefer a new commander in chief.

The Obama campaign had been hoping that veterans and their families — especially among the post-Sept. 11 generation that served in Iraq and Afghanistan — would be part of their path to victory: They’re a high turn-out demographic and concentrated in battleground states, with nearly 1 million each in North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia, and 1.6 million in Florida.

But recent polls make clear that the president’s campaign is losing the battle. Even as Obama leads in Colorado, Florida, Ohio and Virginia, Mitt Romney is up by double digits among veterans in those states. Nationwide, he’s got a commanding 20-percentage-point lead over Obama and has even overtaken the president with younger veterans.

(Also on POLITICO: Mitt's transition efforts intensifying)

“It’s no contest,” said Maurice Tamman, a Reuters data news editor who has polled on veterans and the presidential campaign.

Obama’s campaign has been trying to improve on a historical Democratic disadvantage on national security and among veterans by touting the killing of Osama bin Laden, ending Iraq combat operations and winding down the war in Afghanistan. They’ve also been talking up the administration’s attention to veterans’ benefits and efforts spearheaded by first lady Michelle Obama, hoping to appeal not just to the troops but to the spouses and other military family members who have coped with long separations and multiple deployments.

(Also on POLITICO: Dan Senor: U.S. 'looks impotent')

Instead, even as Obama has been gaining in the overall polls, several NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist polls conducted from Sept. 9-11 had Romney well ahead of Obama among veterans in Florida, Ohio and Virginia. And in Colorado, a poll released Sept. 16 by SurveyUSA and the Denver Post found both veterans and military families supporting Romney over Obama 53 percent to 39 percent in a survey that included third-party candidates.

Via: Politico

Continue Reading...

Report: Obama To Release 55 Prisoners From Gitmo

President Barack Obama is about to release or transfer 55 Gitmo prisoners, despite reports that the Libyan believed to be behind the killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was a former Guantanamo inmate transferred to Libyan custody.

The large percentage of those scheduled to be released are Yemeni, according to a list made public by the Obama administration.

Obama stopped the release or transfer of Yemeni inmates in 2010, because the conditions in the country were viewed as too "unsettled" at the time. 

A release or transfer of 55 inmates means Obama is moving out one third of the prisoners at Guantanamo. And while it doesn't represent a shutdown of the facility, it's certainly indicative of a move toward that end. 

Could it be that Obama is trying to set himself up to campaign as the man who is taking steps to finally close Gitmo, just as he recently reversed the Afghanistan surge in order to campaign as the man who's winding down the war in the Afghanistan? 

The ACLU has praised the releases as "a partial victory for transparency."

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Last of US Surge Troops Leave Afghanistan

AP

Last of US Surge Troops Leave Afghanistan, Officials Say

U.S. officials say that nearly two years after President Barack Obama ordered 33,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to tamp down escalating Taliban violence, the last of those surge troops have left the country.

The withdrawal leaves 68,000 American forces in the warzone. It comes as the security transition to Afghan forces is in trouble, threatened by a spike in so-called insider attacks in which Afghan Army and police troops, or insurgents dressed in their uniforms, have been attacking and killing U.S. and NATO forces.

And it's called into question the core strategy that relies on NATO troops working closely with Afghans, training them to take over the security of their own country so the U.S. and its allies can leave at the end of 2014 as planned.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading...

Setbacks Piling Up in Afghanistan

WASHINGTON (AP) — The end game in Afghanistan is off to a shaky start.

Just as the last U.S. "surge" troops leave the country, trouble is breaking out in ways that go to the core of the strategy for winding down the U.S. and allied combat role and making Afghans responsible for their own security. At stake is the goal of ensuring that Afghanistan not revert to being a terrorist haven.

Nearly two years after President Barack Obama announced that he was sending another 33,000 troops to take on the Taliban, those reinforcements are completing their return to the United States this week. That leaves about 68,000 American troops, along with their NATO allies and Afghan partners, to carry out an ambitious plan to put the Afghans fully in the combat lead as early as next year.

But the setbacks are piling up: a spasm of deadly attacks on U.S. and NATO forces by Afghan soldiers and police, including three attacks in the last three days; an audacious Taliban assault on a coalition air base that killed two Marines and destroyed six fighter jets; and a NATO airstrike that inadvertently killed eight Afghan women and girls.

The Pentagon on Monday identified the two Marines killed at Camp Bastion on Friday as Lt. Col. Christopher K. Raible, 40, of Huntingdon, Pa., and Sgt. Bradley W. Atwell, 27, of Kokomo, Ind. Raible was commander of the Harrier squadron that had six of its planes destroyed in the assault.

Tensions over the anti-Islam movie produced in the U.S. that ridicules the Prophet Mohammad also spread to Kabul, where demonstrations turned violent Monday when protesters burned cars and threw rocks at a U.S. military base.

Those events help the Taliban's aim of driving a wedge between the Americans and their Afghan partners. They also show that the Taliban, while weakened, remains a force to be reckoned with, 11 years after the first U.S. troops arrived to drive the Taliban out.

The extra troops began moving into Afghanistan in early 2010, pushing the total U.S. force to a peak of 101,000 by mid-2011.

The U.S. troop surge was supposed to put so much military pressure on the Taliban that its leaders — most of whom are in Pakistan — would feel compelled to come to the peace table. That hasn't happened. Preliminary contacts began, but have been stymied.

Via: Town Hall

Continue Reading...