Spent the first week home getting used to life in these United States again. It takes a little while to get off the deployment express and get back to being part of the homefront.
Part of this is also looking at what options are available to me for the next mission.
I have been told by multiple friends and family that my days of traveling to Afghanistan are at an end. I've made enough trips there ( 7 trips in and out of country in total).
Working on the next plan and have been looking toward self employment. There are resources available to help Veterans like me with setting up a business. I have become somewhat disolusioned with work in corporate America as they are solely focused on $$$. People have become a disposable resource to companies and for a HR professional who values workers, it has become disheartening.
More to follow as the next mission progresses. Like other challenges I have faced, this one will be an adventure I am sure.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Sunday, May 26, 2013
A Dull Tour is a Good Tour.....Remembering our fallen warriors
Getting used to being back home.....Helped out with breakfast at ALL ARE WELCOME Saturday morning which was nice. Got to see my daughter perform the annual " That's Entertainment" show which I had missed for the past few years....also nice.
Having no major issues occur while deployed constitutes the "Dull Tour" side of things, but the time spent in Afghanistan was not without issues and challenges.
I've got the start of a book on my time in Afghanistan and will look to get it into format for e-publishing in the near future. I like the idea of not having to deal with the publishing houses and all that related BS. I wonder how many writers could have gone forward but were frustrated by the "system".
Getting used to being back home is a process and making sure all goes as expected takes time and effort. I'll take it one step at a time and look to get myself back to normal here one day at at time. Doing so will also be part of what I put in the book.
In the meantime, make sure to honor our fallen Warriors and show them that their sacrifice matters. Yeah, holiday weekend and a break from work, etc.,etc. but take time for those who gave their all so you can have this break for work.
ALL gave some, but some gave ALL. Sergeant First Class Jared C. Monti of Raynham, MA is an example in point. He gave his life in Afghanistan trying to save his battle buddies.
We remember him and all others who gave the last full measure for their battle buddies and all of us.
Thank you to them and all who serve our great land.
Having no major issues occur while deployed constitutes the "Dull Tour" side of things, but the time spent in Afghanistan was not without issues and challenges.
I've got the start of a book on my time in Afghanistan and will look to get it into format for e-publishing in the near future. I like the idea of not having to deal with the publishing houses and all that related BS. I wonder how many writers could have gone forward but were frustrated by the "system".
Getting used to being back home is a process and making sure all goes as expected takes time and effort. I'll take it one step at a time and look to get myself back to normal here one day at at time. Doing so will also be part of what I put in the book.
In the meantime, make sure to honor our fallen Warriors and show them that their sacrifice matters. Yeah, holiday weekend and a break from work, etc.,etc. but take time for those who gave their all so you can have this break for work.
ALL gave some, but some gave ALL. Sergeant First Class Jared C. Monti of Raynham, MA is an example in point. He gave his life in Afghanistan trying to save his battle buddies.
We remember him and all others who gave the last full measure for their battle buddies and all of us.
Thank you to them and all who serve our great land.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Memorial Day 2013.... Nice to be Home
Getting used to being home in the good old US of A....quite a haul over last 36 hrs to get here from Afghanistan.
Memorial Day this weekend.....Please take time to honor our military who gave the last full measure of devotion to duty, honor and country.
It takes a small bit of your time but it means a lot to all who served.
Memorial Day this weekend.....Please take time to honor our military who gave the last full measure of devotion to duty, honor and country.
It takes a small bit of your time but it means a lot to all who served.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Aloha Spirit - Retro VW Style
Demob countdown is down to 1....and I am dreaming of time in Hawaii..... Found this on the web
Awesome retro cool old steel... I plan on visiting Hawaii again...and will look to have an aircooled VW to drive when I get there.
Awesome retro cool old steel... I plan on visiting Hawaii again...and will look to have an aircooled VW to drive when I get there.
JAWS - Movie Posters reimagined
If you've been paying attention to things on Cape Cod, you might know that summers there are now more shark infested than ever. The seals are thriving due to protection as marine mammals and that in turn brings the Great White Sharks in for the summer.
That got me thinking about what would it be like if JAWS was made today, instead of 38 years ago...Just hope the sharks focus on the seals only.
Here's a couple updated copies of posters for JAWS, the quintessential summer movie.
That got me thinking about what would it be like if JAWS was made today, instead of 38 years ago...Just hope the sharks focus on the seals only.
Here's a couple updated copies of posters for JAWS, the quintessential summer movie.
Friday, May 17, 2013
The Demob Countdown continues...... "Getting Short"
I am getting " short " as the number of days until I demob is now at 3 !!!
It was a rough night for the people of Kandahar as they had to deal with another carbombing which caused up to 16 deaths and another 60+ wounded.....Sad, sad, sad.
While there are many things I will not miss about this place, (Flies, Dust, Heat, Conflict, etc.), there has been moments where the beauty of the desert presents itself.
Sunrise is one of my favorite moments in the day as all is still and nature shows us her palette of colors and textures can create. Enclosed is a picture I took of one of those moments.
Hope all are well stateside and looking forward to joining you soon.
It was a rough night for the people of Kandahar as they had to deal with another carbombing which caused up to 16 deaths and another 60+ wounded.....Sad, sad, sad.
While there are many things I will not miss about this place, (Flies, Dust, Heat, Conflict, etc.), there has been moments where the beauty of the desert presents itself.
Sunrise is one of my favorite moments in the day as all is still and nature shows us her palette of colors and textures can create. Enclosed is a picture I took of one of those moments.
Hope all are well stateside and looking forward to joining you soon.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Gen. Stanley McChrystal writes about " The Courage to Change "
As a student of Leadership and a HR Professional, I have spoken to many about " change " and why it is so difficult for people.
WE are creatures of habit....each one of us has our daily routines and we use these to set our schedules on a daily basis. By doing so, we can control our life and try to have an expectation of what to expect. I try to help others understand that "change" is the one true constant in life.
Here, General Stanley McChrystal talks about how he had to come to grips with change to make sure his efforts and the efforts of his troops were effective.
This is part one of his posting and I will follow-up with part two when it is published.
WE are creatures of habit....each one of us has our daily routines and we use these to set our schedules on a daily basis. By doing so, we can control our life and try to have an expectation of what to expect. I try to help others understand that "change" is the one true constant in life.
Here, General Stanley McChrystal talks about how he had to come to grips with change to make sure his efforts and the efforts of his troops were effective.
This is part one of his posting and I will follow-up with part two when it is published.
The Courage to Change
By General Stanley McChrystal
At 49 years old, I was a two-star general, and less than a year into what would ultimately be an almost five-year tour as the Commanding General of the Joint Special Operations Command. Within two years I would be wearing a third star, and would ultimately spend almost the entire command tour forward deployed in combat zones. My position placed me in charge of thousands of the United States’ most elite service-members, men and women who had been screened and tested at multiple levels throughout their careers to make it into the military’s most demanding units. I commanded Army Rangers and special operators; the most highly-selected Navy SEALs; the best helicopter pilots in the world; the Air Force’s finest medics and communicator;, and a host of brilliant specialists whose diverse expertise was required to keep our organization moving. We were thousands strong, dispersed around the globe, and by any measurable standard the best trained and most rigorously selected organization that the battlefield had ever seen. My force comprised people selected (amongst other qualities) for their inability to accept anything but victory: We were hard-wired to win.
All of this made my revelation that spring all the more difficult. We were losing. There were no front lines to measure, no enemy higher-headquarters to spy on. This type of conflict was new to us. My units were nightly engaging Al Qaeda in Iraq’s fighters, but our enemy’s influence continued to spread. We were pushing ourselves to our physical and mental edge, but the enemy network was expanding faster than we could move. Most importantly, every metric I could think of was trending negative: al Qaeda acts of violence were on the rise, shadow governments were surpassing the influence of local authorities, civilian casualties were steadily rising, car bombs were exploding every day in Baghdad. Meanwhile, my organization simply had no more capacity, human or technical. Like most soldiers, I’d never contemplated finding myself on the losing side in a war, but I was increasingly convinced that this was what if felt like.
The word—losing—pounded in my head as the hot desert air whipped through the helicopter. I had felt it in my gut for several months, and my visit that night had confirmed it for me intellectually.
But the challenge was this. Our people weren’t losing: They won all their fights. Our units weren’t losing: They could point to their progress. Every element of my several-thousand-strong task force was effectively and steadily winning when it came to their area and their problem set. Yet, collectively, we were still losing. The challenge we faced, I was beginning to realize, was unlike anything we’d ever encountered—or, worse, anticipated—as a possibility.
The members of our force in Anbar were risking their lives every night to address the problem they faced. But did we have the right solution? More important, did we understand the real problem? It was hard for anyone in our force to truly articulate how their actions, effective as they were, tied to the larger effort across the battlefield to debilitate Al Qaeda’s insurgency. At best, I sensed, we were winning in small pockets—capturing enemy leaders and weapons—and hoping that this somehow supported an overarching strategy. At worst, we were risking, losing, and taking lives without knowing that those sacrifices were getting us any closer to ending the war.
At that point, on that night, I had more questions than answers. But I’d begun to understand what needed to be done. As the leader of this organization, I knew the first step would be significant, and it was one that only I could take. We needed to fundamentally change our organization, and that change would need to start with me. I knew, too, that I was entering what would be one of the most challenging periods of my career. I did so with a message that I and I alone could deliver to the Task Force. It went something like this:
You are the finest force the world has ever known, and I’m proud of everything you’re doing. You go out, night after night, into harm’s way—and do incredible things. As individual units, you're winning every time. I recognize and appreciate that. But I’m here to tell you we are losing this war. I know each of you is doing everything you can, and doing it better than history has ever seen. I also know that your families at home make sacrifices every day to support you, our mission, and our nation. I recognize and appreciate that.
So we need to make a choice. We can continue on this road, and all go home with medals and war stories, but those stories will all end with the fact that we, collectively, lost the war. Or, we can change how we operate. If we don’t, we will lose—of that I have no doubt. Changing will be a painful process, but the road we're on is destined for failure. So we start now. I will be here with you, every step of the way.
Thus began our journey
May 14, 2013
In the spring of 2004, while riding in the back of a darkened helicopter that flew low across the desert floor of Western Iraq, I had an alarming realization. My team and I were en route back to our headquarters in Balad, Iraq, having spent several hours with one of our units based outside Fallujah, a troubled city in Anbar Province. My visit had, as usual, allowed me to spend time with incredible people doing exceptional work. But a few hours on the ground had confirmed a nagging sense I’d had for several months—and I knew then that the road ahead was to be even more difficult than I had first anticipated.
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130514223634-86145090-the-courage-to-change?trk=NUS_UNIU_PEOPLE_FOLLOW-megaphone-fllw
At 49 years old, I was a two-star general, and less than a year into what would ultimately be an almost five-year tour as the Commanding General of the Joint Special Operations Command. Within two years I would be wearing a third star, and would ultimately spend almost the entire command tour forward deployed in combat zones. My position placed me in charge of thousands of the United States’ most elite service-members, men and women who had been screened and tested at multiple levels throughout their careers to make it into the military’s most demanding units. I commanded Army Rangers and special operators; the most highly-selected Navy SEALs; the best helicopter pilots in the world; the Air Force’s finest medics and communicator;, and a host of brilliant specialists whose diverse expertise was required to keep our organization moving. We were thousands strong, dispersed around the globe, and by any measurable standard the best trained and most rigorously selected organization that the battlefield had ever seen. My force comprised people selected (amongst other qualities) for their inability to accept anything but victory: We were hard-wired to win.
All of this made my revelation that spring all the more difficult. We were losing. There were no front lines to measure, no enemy higher-headquarters to spy on. This type of conflict was new to us. My units were nightly engaging Al Qaeda in Iraq’s fighters, but our enemy’s influence continued to spread. We were pushing ourselves to our physical and mental edge, but the enemy network was expanding faster than we could move. Most importantly, every metric I could think of was trending negative: al Qaeda acts of violence were on the rise, shadow governments were surpassing the influence of local authorities, civilian casualties were steadily rising, car bombs were exploding every day in Baghdad. Meanwhile, my organization simply had no more capacity, human or technical. Like most soldiers, I’d never contemplated finding myself on the losing side in a war, but I was increasingly convinced that this was what if felt like.
The word—losing—pounded in my head as the hot desert air whipped through the helicopter. I had felt it in my gut for several months, and my visit that night had confirmed it for me intellectually.
But the challenge was this. Our people weren’t losing: They won all their fights. Our units weren’t losing: They could point to their progress. Every element of my several-thousand-strong task force was effectively and steadily winning when it came to their area and their problem set. Yet, collectively, we were still losing. The challenge we faced, I was beginning to realize, was unlike anything we’d ever encountered—or, worse, anticipated—as a possibility.
The members of our force in Anbar were risking their lives every night to address the problem they faced. But did we have the right solution? More important, did we understand the real problem? It was hard for anyone in our force to truly articulate how their actions, effective as they were, tied to the larger effort across the battlefield to debilitate Al Qaeda’s insurgency. At best, I sensed, we were winning in small pockets—capturing enemy leaders and weapons—and hoping that this somehow supported an overarching strategy. At worst, we were risking, losing, and taking lives without knowing that those sacrifices were getting us any closer to ending the war.
At that point, on that night, I had more questions than answers. But I’d begun to understand what needed to be done. As the leader of this organization, I knew the first step would be significant, and it was one that only I could take. We needed to fundamentally change our organization, and that change would need to start with me. I knew, too, that I was entering what would be one of the most challenging periods of my career. I did so with a message that I and I alone could deliver to the Task Force. It went something like this:
You are the finest force the world has ever known, and I’m proud of everything you’re doing. You go out, night after night, into harm’s way—and do incredible things. As individual units, you're winning every time. I recognize and appreciate that. But I’m here to tell you we are losing this war. I know each of you is doing everything you can, and doing it better than history has ever seen. I also know that your families at home make sacrifices every day to support you, our mission, and our nation. I recognize and appreciate that.
So we need to make a choice. We can continue on this road, and all go home with medals and war stories, but those stories will all end with the fact that we, collectively, lost the war. Or, we can change how we operate. If we don’t, we will lose—of that I have no doubt. Changing will be a painful process, but the road we're on is destined for failure. So we start now. I will be here with you, every step of the way.
Thus began our journey
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) makes Naval Aviation History
History in the making.....The US NAVY leading the military ( and the world) with technology.
Bravo Zulu !!
From Navy.mil
ATLANTIC OCEAN (May 14, 2013) An X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) demonstrator launches from the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77). George H.W. Bush is the first aircraft carrier to successfully catapult launch an unmanned aircraft from its flight deck. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Tony D. Curtis/Released
Bravo Zulu !!
From Navy.mil
ATLANTIC OCEAN (May 14, 2013) An X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) demonstrator launches from the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77). George H.W. Bush is the first aircraft carrier to successfully catapult launch an unmanned aircraft from its flight deck. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Tony D. Curtis/Released
Monday, May 13, 2013
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Find'em Catch'em Kill'em - "US Special Ops Have Become Much, Much Scarier Since 9/11"
I have written about " Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs". The people in our country are the sheep and the Terrorists are the wolves who will mercilessly slaughter the sheep. The only thing standing between them and the Wolves are " The Sheepdogs "
Many don't want to think about it but we live in a very, very, very dangerous world. It would be nice if we could think otherwise but anyone who thinks there are not people plotting to kill us 24/7/365 is living in a fantasy world.
To deal with the " Wolves ", we have men who's sole job is to hunt the "Wolves" down.
Period. They are the Joint Special Operations Command or (JSOC).
We have and operate many military agencies but the men who spend their days "taking out the trash" are the quiet professionals who keep us safe. They are the tip of the spear. They don't focus on "hearts & minds", only taking out the most dangerous enemies.
God Bless them. I will not apologize to anyone about this as I support them as much as I supported what we did to Europe & Japan in WW2. We leveled cities and burned them to the ground. It was what was required.
War is a terrible thing but there are much worse things such as the loss of Freedom and our nation.
Rock on Boys. Take the bad guys out. You have my support.
After Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration began waging a global war on terrorism both openly and on the "dark side."
The full scale of the shadow war is just coming out now, as detailed in "Dirty Wars: The World Is A Battlefield" by investigative journalist and New York Times bestselling author Jeremy Scahill.
Directed by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the White House expanded the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) into a global capturing and killing machine.
JSOC, which includes troops from a variety of America's best units, grew from fewer than 2,000 troops before 9/11 to as many as 25,000 today.
While most of their missions remain classified, JSOC operators have been used far more aggressively in the past decade than ever before.
"Their real days of glory ... really only started after 9/11," Colonel Walter Patrick Lang, who spent much of his career in covert operations, told Scahill. "They didn't do a lot of fighting before that."
Known within the covert ops community as ninjas or "snake eaters," JSOC operators train to track a target, fix his position, and then finish him off without being detected.
"They're the ace in the hole," General Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Clinton, told Scahill. "If you need someone that can sky dive from thirty miles away, go down the chimney of a castle, and blow it up from the inside — those are the guys you want to call on."
The command was "created in secrecy to perform operations that were kept hidden to virtually all other entities of military and governments," Scahill writes, and the White House took full advantage of that.
From "Dirty Wars":
By late 2002 JSOC operators were discreetly based in Qatar and Kenya for potential missions in Yemen and Somalia. It developed an in-house signals intelligence unit, known as the Activity, and Rumsfeld created a JSOC human intelligence collection operation, called the Strategic Support Branch, that mirrored the capabilities of the CIA.
The addition of the intelligence aspect "effectively meant that JSOC was free to act as a spy agency and kill/capture force rolled into one," Scahill writes.
JSOC even ran an interrogation program, parallel to the CIA's black sites, that would provide the administration with even more flexibility and less oversight (See: Camp Nama).
Rumsfeld worked to make sure that the unit was "unrestrained and unaccountable to anyone except him, Cheney, and the president" while Cheney began going to JSOC headquarters at Fort Bragg in North Carolina to give direct action orders.
"It grew and went out of control under the vice president. It kinda went wild," Vincent Cannistraro, a career CIA counterterrorism officer, told Scahill. "There were a couple of places where, because they weren't coordinated, they weren't informed, they killed people that were not real targets. They were wrong. It happened, frequently."
In September 2003 JSOC, led by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was running the show in Iraq, including training Iraqi Special Ops units that became unaccountable death squads.
It was also making its presence known in Afghanistan.
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer (Ret.), a career military intelligence officer who wrote the book "Operation Dark Heart," wrote that JSOC's force in Afghanistan "had the best technology, the best weapons, the best people — and plenty of money to burn."
From "Dirty Wars":
In early 2004 Rumsfeld signed a secret order, known as the Al Qaeda Network Execute Order, that "streamlined JSOC's ability to conduct operations and hit targets outside of the stated battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan."
By mid-2004 JSOC operations in Iraq had accelerated dramatically to the point where they were effectively "running the covert war buried within the larger war and controlling the intelligence," Scahill writes.
In 2005 and 2006 JSOC had its hands full with the Iraqi insurgency. It recruited 12 "tactical action operatives" from the private military company Blackwater from a secret raid (code-named Operation Fury) targeting an al Qaeda facility inside Pakistan.
Scahill notes that by 2007 the budget for U.S. special operations had grown to more than $8 billion annually, up 60 percent from 2003.
In January 2007, Scahill writes, JSOC began "a concentrated campaign of targeted assassinations and snatch operations" in Somalia while a CIA-backed Ethiopian force began an ill-fated invasion of the country.
In June 2008 Vice Admiral William McRaven took charge of JSOC, and the next month President Bush approved a secret order authorizing Special Ops Forces (as opposed to their Blackwater contractors) to conduct strikes in Pakistan without the country's permission.
Special Operations Forces were now being used to "go in and capture or kill people who were supposedly linked to extremist organizations around the world, in some cases allied countries," a source dubbed "Hunter," an operator who worked with JSOC on acknowledged and unacknowledged battlefields, told Scahill.
From "Dirty Wars":
Shortly after Barack Obama took office in January 2009, Scahill writes, he gave "carte blanche to JSOC and the CIA to wage a global manhunt. Capture was option two."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-rise-of-jsoc-in-dirty-wars-2013-4#ixzz2T5BUuLSP
Many don't want to think about it but we live in a very, very, very dangerous world. It would be nice if we could think otherwise but anyone who thinks there are not people plotting to kill us 24/7/365 is living in a fantasy world.
To deal with the " Wolves ", we have men who's sole job is to hunt the "Wolves" down.
Period. They are the Joint Special Operations Command or (JSOC).
We have and operate many military agencies but the men who spend their days "taking out the trash" are the quiet professionals who keep us safe. They are the tip of the spear. They don't focus on "hearts & minds", only taking out the most dangerous enemies.
God Bless them. I will not apologize to anyone about this as I support them as much as I supported what we did to Europe & Japan in WW2. We leveled cities and burned them to the ground. It was what was required.
War is a terrible thing but there are much worse things such as the loss of Freedom and our nation.
Rock on Boys. Take the bad guys out. You have my support.
US Special Ops Have Become Much, Much Scarier Since 9/11
Michael Kelley | May 10, 2013, Business Insider
The full scale of the shadow war is just coming out now, as detailed in "Dirty Wars: The World Is A Battlefield" by investigative journalist and New York Times bestselling author Jeremy Scahill.
Directed by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the White House expanded the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) into a global capturing and killing machine.
JSOC, which includes troops from a variety of America's best units, grew from fewer than 2,000 troops before 9/11 to as many as 25,000 today.
While most of their missions remain classified, JSOC operators have been used far more aggressively in the past decade than ever before.
"Their real days of glory ... really only started after 9/11," Colonel Walter Patrick Lang, who spent much of his career in covert operations, told Scahill. "They didn't do a lot of fighting before that."
Known within the covert ops community as ninjas or "snake eaters," JSOC operators train to track a target, fix his position, and then finish him off without being detected.
"They're the ace in the hole," General Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Clinton, told Scahill. "If you need someone that can sky dive from thirty miles away, go down the chimney of a castle, and blow it up from the inside — those are the guys you want to call on."
The command was "created in secrecy to perform operations that were kept hidden to virtually all other entities of military and governments," Scahill writes, and the White House took full advantage of that.
From "Dirty Wars":
It was the beginning of what would be a multiyear project by Rumsfeld and Cheney to separate this small, elite, surgical unit from the broader chain of command and transform it into a global killing machine.
What they developed looked like a paramilitary CIA, according to Scahill's reporting.By late 2002 JSOC operators were discreetly based in Qatar and Kenya for potential missions in Yemen and Somalia. It developed an in-house signals intelligence unit, known as the Activity, and Rumsfeld created a JSOC human intelligence collection operation, called the Strategic Support Branch, that mirrored the capabilities of the CIA.
The addition of the intelligence aspect "effectively meant that JSOC was free to act as a spy agency and kill/capture force rolled into one," Scahill writes.
JSOC even ran an interrogation program, parallel to the CIA's black sites, that would provide the administration with even more flexibility and less oversight (See: Camp Nama).
Rumsfeld worked to make sure that the unit was "unrestrained and unaccountable to anyone except him, Cheney, and the president" while Cheney began going to JSOC headquarters at Fort Bragg in North Carolina to give direct action orders.
"It grew and went out of control under the vice president. It kinda went wild," Vincent Cannistraro, a career CIA counterterrorism officer, told Scahill. "There were a couple of places where, because they weren't coordinated, they weren't informed, they killed people that were not real targets. They were wrong. It happened, frequently."
In September 2003 JSOC, led by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was running the show in Iraq, including training Iraqi Special Ops units that became unaccountable death squads.
It was also making its presence known in Afghanistan.
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer (Ret.), a career military intelligence officer who wrote the book "Operation Dark Heart," wrote that JSOC's force in Afghanistan "had the best technology, the best weapons, the best people — and plenty of money to burn."
From "Dirty Wars":
Unlike the Green Berets, JSOC was not in the country to win any hearts and minds. Once JSOC took charge, the mission would no longer resemble anthropology. It was to be a manhunt, at times an assassination machine.
In early 2004 Rumsfeld signed a secret order, known as the Al Qaeda Network Execute Order, that "streamlined JSOC's ability to conduct operations and hit targets outside of the stated battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan."
By mid-2004 JSOC operations in Iraq had accelerated dramatically to the point where they were effectively "running the covert war buried within the larger war and controlling the intelligence," Scahill writes.
In 2005 and 2006 JSOC had its hands full with the Iraqi insurgency. It recruited 12 "tactical action operatives" from the private military company Blackwater from a secret raid (code-named Operation Fury) targeting an al Qaeda facility inside Pakistan.
Scahill notes that by 2007 the budget for U.S. special operations had grown to more than $8 billion annually, up 60 percent from 2003.
In January 2007, Scahill writes, JSOC began "a concentrated campaign of targeted assassinations and snatch operations" in Somalia while a CIA-backed Ethiopian force began an ill-fated invasion of the country.
In June 2008 Vice Admiral William McRaven took charge of JSOC, and the next month President Bush approved a secret order authorizing Special Ops Forces (as opposed to their Blackwater contractors) to conduct strikes in Pakistan without the country's permission.
Special Operations Forces were now being used to "go in and capture or kill people who were supposedly linked to extremist organizations around the world, in some cases allied countries," a source dubbed "Hunter," an operator who worked with JSOC on acknowledged and unacknowledged battlefields, told Scahill.
From "Dirty Wars":
The mindset, [Hunter] said, was, "The world is a battlefield and we are at war. Therefore the military can go wherever they please and do whatever it is that they want to do, in order to achieve the national security objectives of whichever administration happens to be in power."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-rise-of-jsoc-in-dirty-wars-2013-4#ixzz2T5BUuLSP
Saturday, May 11, 2013
How far we have fallen.... Recalling JFK's "City Upon A Hill" Speech JAN 9th, 1961
We as a nation have allowed people who are highly unqualified to take control of our governments on the Federal, State and Local levels. The people who are in charge are a mere shadow of those who were elected in the past..... Think about people like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, IKE and JFK....Compare them to the faux leaders who are in our halls of government now....
There is no comparison. We do not have the quality leaders we need. There is no comparison and we need better leaders now more than ever.
Take a listen to the enclosed link and read the words that JFK spoke just before he was to be inaugurated. This speech sums up in 8 minutes what we need from our leaders. You don't have to agree with JFK's political views but you can't argue with his principles of what we should be getting from our leaders on all levels of the government we elect and who should serve the people, not the other way around.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/OYhUZE2Qo0-ogdV7ok900A.aspx
City Upon A Hill
President Elect John F. Kennedy
Massachusetts General Court,
January 9, 1961
I have welcomed this opportunity to address this historic body, and, through you, the people of Massachusetts to whom I am so deeply indebted for a lifetime of friendship and trust.
For fourteen years I have placed my confidence in the citizens of Massachusetts--and they have generously responded by placing their confidence in me.
Now, on the Friday after next, I am to assume new and broader responsibilities. But I am not here to bid farewell to Massachusetts.
For forty-three years--whether I was in London, Washington, the South Pacific, or elsewhere--this has been my home; and, God willing, wherever I serve this shall remain my home
It was here my grandparents were born--it is here I hope my grandchildren will be born.
I speak neither from false provincial pride nor artful political flattery. For no man about to enter high office in this country can ever be unmindful of the contribution this state has made to our national greatness.
Its leaders have shaped our destiny long before the great republic was born. Its principles have guided our footsteps in times of crisis as well as in times of calm. Its democratic institutions--including this historic body--have served as beacon lights for other nations as well as our sister states.
For what Pericles said to the Athenians has long been true of this commonwealth: "We do not imitate--for we are a model to others."
And so it is that I carry with me from this state to that high and lonely office to which I now succeed more than fond memories of firm friendships. The enduring qualities of Massachusetts--the common threads woven by the Pilgrim and the Puritan, the fisherman and the farmer, the Yankee and the immigrant--will not be and could not be forgotten in this nation's executive mansion.
They are an indelible part of my life, my convictions, my view of the past, and my hopes for the future.
Allow me to illustrate: During the last sixty days, I have been at the task of constructing an administration. It has been a long and deliberate process. Some have counseled greater speed. Others have counseled more expedient tests.
But I have been guided by the standard John Winthrop set before his shipmates on the flagship Arbella three hundred and thirty-one years ago, as they, too, faced the task of building a new government on a perilous frontier.
"We must always consider," he said, "that we shall be as a city upon a hill--the eyes of all people are upon us."
Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us--and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill--constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities.
For we are setting out upon a voyage in 1961 no less hazardous than that undertaken by the Arabella in 1630. We are committing ourselves to tasks of statecraft no less awesome than that of governing the Massachusetts Bay Colony, beset as it was then by terror without and disorder within.
History will not judge our endeavors--and a government cannot be selected--merely on the basis of color or creed or even party affiliation. Neither will competence and loyalty and stature, while essential to the utmost, suffice in times such as these.
For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on each one of us--recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state--our success or failure, in whatever office we may hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions:
First, were we truly men of courage--with the courage to stand up to one's enemies--and the courage to stand up, when necessary, to one's associates--the courage to resist public pressure, as well as private greed
Secondly, were we truly men of judgment--with perceptive judgment of the future as well as the past--of our own mistakes as well as the mistakes of others--with enough wisdom to know that we did not know, and enough candor to admit it?
Third, were we truly men of integrity--men who never ran out on either the principles in which they believed or the people who believed in them--men who believed in us--men whom neither financial gain nor political ambition could ever divert from the fulfillment of our sacred trust?
Finally, were we truly men of dedication--with an honor mortgaged to no single individual or group, and compromised by no private obligation or aim, but devoted solely to serving the public good and the national interest.
Courage--judgment--integrity--dedication--these are the historic qualities of the Bay Colony and the Bay State--the qualities which this state has consistently sent to this chamber on Beacon Hill here in Boston and to Capitol Hill back in Washington.
And these are the qualities which, with God's help, this son of Massachusetts hopes will characterize our government's conduct in the four stormy years that lie ahead.
Humbly I ask His help in that undertaking--but aware that on earth His will is worked by men. I ask for your help and your prayers, as I embark on this new and solemn journey.
There is no comparison. We do not have the quality leaders we need. There is no comparison and we need better leaders now more than ever.
Take a listen to the enclosed link and read the words that JFK spoke just before he was to be inaugurated. This speech sums up in 8 minutes what we need from our leaders. You don't have to agree with JFK's political views but you can't argue with his principles of what we should be getting from our leaders on all levels of the government we elect and who should serve the people, not the other way around.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/OYhUZE2Qo0-ogdV7ok900A.aspx
City Upon A Hill
President Elect John F. Kennedy
Massachusetts General Court,
January 9, 1961
I have welcomed this opportunity to address this historic body, and, through you, the people of Massachusetts to whom I am so deeply indebted for a lifetime of friendship and trust.
For fourteen years I have placed my confidence in the citizens of Massachusetts--and they have generously responded by placing their confidence in me.
Now, on the Friday after next, I am to assume new and broader responsibilities. But I am not here to bid farewell to Massachusetts.
For forty-three years--whether I was in London, Washington, the South Pacific, or elsewhere--this has been my home; and, God willing, wherever I serve this shall remain my home
It was here my grandparents were born--it is here I hope my grandchildren will be born.
I speak neither from false provincial pride nor artful political flattery. For no man about to enter high office in this country can ever be unmindful of the contribution this state has made to our national greatness.
Its leaders have shaped our destiny long before the great republic was born. Its principles have guided our footsteps in times of crisis as well as in times of calm. Its democratic institutions--including this historic body--have served as beacon lights for other nations as well as our sister states.
For what Pericles said to the Athenians has long been true of this commonwealth: "We do not imitate--for we are a model to others."
And so it is that I carry with me from this state to that high and lonely office to which I now succeed more than fond memories of firm friendships. The enduring qualities of Massachusetts--the common threads woven by the Pilgrim and the Puritan, the fisherman and the farmer, the Yankee and the immigrant--will not be and could not be forgotten in this nation's executive mansion.
They are an indelible part of my life, my convictions, my view of the past, and my hopes for the future.
Allow me to illustrate: During the last sixty days, I have been at the task of constructing an administration. It has been a long and deliberate process. Some have counseled greater speed. Others have counseled more expedient tests.
But I have been guided by the standard John Winthrop set before his shipmates on the flagship Arbella three hundred and thirty-one years ago, as they, too, faced the task of building a new government on a perilous frontier.
"We must always consider," he said, "that we shall be as a city upon a hill--the eyes of all people are upon us."
Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us--and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill--constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities.
For we are setting out upon a voyage in 1961 no less hazardous than that undertaken by the Arabella in 1630. We are committing ourselves to tasks of statecraft no less awesome than that of governing the Massachusetts Bay Colony, beset as it was then by terror without and disorder within.
History will not judge our endeavors--and a government cannot be selected--merely on the basis of color or creed or even party affiliation. Neither will competence and loyalty and stature, while essential to the utmost, suffice in times such as these.
For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on each one of us--recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state--our success or failure, in whatever office we may hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions:
First, were we truly men of courage--with the courage to stand up to one's enemies--and the courage to stand up, when necessary, to one's associates--the courage to resist public pressure, as well as private greed
Secondly, were we truly men of judgment--with perceptive judgment of the future as well as the past--of our own mistakes as well as the mistakes of others--with enough wisdom to know that we did not know, and enough candor to admit it?
Third, were we truly men of integrity--men who never ran out on either the principles in which they believed or the people who believed in them--men who believed in us--men whom neither financial gain nor political ambition could ever divert from the fulfillment of our sacred trust?
Finally, were we truly men of dedication--with an honor mortgaged to no single individual or group, and compromised by no private obligation or aim, but devoted solely to serving the public good and the national interest.
Courage--judgment--integrity--dedication--these are the historic qualities of the Bay Colony and the Bay State--the qualities which this state has consistently sent to this chamber on Beacon Hill here in Boston and to Capitol Hill back in Washington.
And these are the qualities which, with God's help, this son of Massachusetts hopes will characterize our government's conduct in the four stormy years that lie ahead.
Humbly I ask His help in that undertaking--but aware that on earth His will is worked by men. I ask for your help and your prayers, as I embark on this new and solemn journey.
Friday, May 10, 2013
TRON Legacy and Afghanistan - " The Game has Changed"
I have always
been a big movie person and have found a lot of enjoyment from the artistic
work of those who create good stories.
Movies run the gambit from those that are masterpieces ( Wizard of Oz,
Casablanca, Star Wars, etc.) to those that are the middle of the pack and those
that are a complete waste of time (anything that has Vampires or the word “Saw” in its title.)
For a movie
to be worth watching, I really have to identify with the characters and
especially the protagonist. The Harry
Potter Movies are very good but I could never really jump into them like others
as I couldn’t identify with any of the characters. The stories were good but I wasn’t able to
see myself in there. Indiana Jones and
the Lost Ark was one story where I jumped in with both feet. When it came out in the early 80s, I went to
see it 7 times in the theatre. This was
before disc players and the like so if you wanted to watch it, you had to go
back to the theatre. I did. Again and again…. I couldn’t get enough of it. Likely why I chose “ Middleboro Jones” for my
Nom de plume.
Which takes
me to the most recent movie that has grabbed my attention and has held it for
quite a bit.
TRON Legacy.
The original
TRON movie came out when I was in college and was a technical achievement for
Disney when it debuted. The style and the
way it portrayed the world inside the computer was revolutionary and many like me
were hooked by all that it offered.
Kevin Flynn was an arcade guy and a computer geek who discovered there
was a lot more than 1’s and O’s going on inside the hard drive of the early
computers. There were good guys and bad
guys. In the original, our man Flynn triumphs over the corporate villain and
the computer program MCP (Master Control Program). He escapes the computer world and returns to
take back the company that he helped build in the real world.
The story
ended there and for over 30 years, the story of TRON was relegated to cable and
an occasional screening on the Disney Channel.
Then the guys at Disney decided to revisit the world of TRON with the
newest CGI enhancements to see where things went after 30 yrs.
In the
updated story, Kevin Flynn has become a missing man as he disappears and no one
knows what happened to him sometime in the late 1980s. His son misses him and then we meet his son
who has grown into a rebellious young man with issues about the loss of his
Dad. Sam Flynn goes looking for answers
and finds himself in the arcade where his Dad has an office no one knows about
which allows him (accidentally) to be uploaded into the world of TRON inside
the computer.
By now,
you might be saying what the heck does any of this have to do with Afghanistan?
I’m getting
to that.
Sam finds his
Dad and they meet up again after being separated for almost 20 years. Sam has trouble as he needs answers on why
his Dad was away for so long. The first
exchange is interesting as the now older Kevin Flynn looks at Sam. He can’t believe he is really there inside
the world inside the computer.
Sam
says, “ Long time…” to which his Dad replies, “ You have no idea..”
This was one
of the first lines of dialogue that really caught my attention as I can
identify with Kevin Flynn.
While I have
been here in Afghanistan over the last 4 years, time has gone forward for me
and all at home. In many ways, I feel
just like Kevin Flynn as I have been in another world from reality and
separated from all at home. Being in
Afghanistan is definitely not TRON but the idea of me getting older while my
son(s) grow into men(like we see with Kevin Flynn) is very much how I have
felt.
Sam’s
response is also somewhat telling as he says to his dad, “ You’re….” and Kevin
Flynn says “ Old “ filling in the truth of the way Kevin Flynn looks and
feels. Kevin Flynn needs time to ponder
having his son there again and he tells Sam, “ Dinner will be soon….we’ll
talk.” and leaves him to spend time with Quorra, a student of all that Kevin
Flynn knows and someone Flynn has been helping.
Kevin Flynn steps outside and looks off into the distance trying to take
in all that has happened and looks out to the distance for a answer….something
I have done quite often here. I have
spent hours looking at the horizon hoping to gain an answer to my own
separation from my family.
Quorra tries
to help Sam with all the emotions and says “ He never thought he would see you
again…” Her assessment of the reunion
between Father & Son is very accurate and also describes what it is like
when you are here on long term assignment.
There are times when you are here and you “feel” like you may never get
to see home & family again…..I can really identify with the emotions here
and it is likely why the movie has such an emotional pull on me.
Some of the
music is also what makes the story come to life. I went to a concert where Maestro John
Williams showed his music with movie scenes in the background. Then he showed the same scenes without any
music at all….. the story was dead and lifeless without the great soundtrack. This bears true in this movie.
His son asks
about why his Dad never came home and Kevin Flynn fills him in on all that has
gone on. The story is one of his efforts
to make a better world and how his good intentions went terribly wrong.
My life
doesn’t follow that aspect of the story but the basic interactions between
Kevin Flynn and his son Sam has some parallels to my own interactions with my
children. They are grown and are set out
on their own lives, some of which I have missed out on during the better part
of the last 4 years that I have been coming here.
Kevin Flynn’s
personal world view is somewhat different than mine but he has a spirituality
that hold some commanality to mine. Mine
is more traditional and his focuses on things like Zen, meditation, etc. Sam
Flynn heads off on his own to figure things out and when his Dad discovers
this, Father & Son are set on a path to their own battle with the troubles
in TRON. Quorra tries to persuade Kevin
Flynn that Sam will be OK but Flynn sees the game change as the catalyst needed
to fix things. “ I won’t lose him
again. Chaos. Good News.”
Sam takes actions
that get him, his Dad and Quorra in trouble.
In his anger, Flynn tells Sam, “You’ve done enough already…..Sam.... You’re
really messing with my Zen thing.”
In a
short while, they figure out that they need to work together and solve the
issues that threaten them and the entire TRON world.
I have also
discovered in life that my kids will come up with their own ideas and you have
to let them try things out. Skinning
their knees is part of life and protecting them from that lesson is one of the
biggest mistakes all these “new age” helicopter parents make. Allowing kids to make mistakes and recover
from them helps make them better people and better at handling life issues.
Kevin Flynn sacrifices
himself in the end to save Sam and Quorra…. It is something all parents would
do and hopefully will never have to face.
The movie is one that didn’t get a lot of box office play but has become
one of my new favorites.
As with many
other situations, I am evaluating what is there in front of me for Leadership
Learning opportunities and making sure I
keep lessons in mind when I run into situations…Too many don’t understand this
simple aspect of making the most of your daily experiences and by doing so,
improving your ability to deal with life.
The mission
here will end soon for me when I demob and I look forward to not being away
from home and the real world. It will be
nice to be part of my real life instead of what occurs here in Afghanistan.
In the end, Kevin Flynn doesn't get to go home. In my world, that is not a worry as I will get home very soon.
" The Game has changed." Indeed.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Monday, May 6, 2013
Countdown to Demob.....Sunrise, May 7th
Mission Control announces that all preparations are proceeding nominally.....
Sunrise - May 7th in #Kandahar, #Afghanistan - And the demob countdown stands at T-Minus 14 Days & counting - RTG !
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Benghazi witness gets last message from Ambassador Stevens
The truth is coming out. Benghazi hearings will be held this week and the cover-up by Obama and Hillary Clinton will be proven.
#Benghazi witness -Ambassador Steven's last message to Greg Hicks, " Greg, we are under attack..." ijreview.com/2013/05/50193-… WH & #Hillary LIED
— Middleboro Jones (@Leadership_One) May 6, 2013
Brutal Job Search Reality for Older Americans Out of Work
And the hits just keep on coming - I don't buy Wall Street's "Everything's great" BS.
Millions of Americans who want to work can't because hiring managers are either implicitly or tacitly discriminating against older Americans. This crap is one of the main reasons why "Corporate America" has become part of the problem. Until this changes, Americans will be looking over their shoulder for when they will be the next victim of a layoff.
Millions of Americans who want to work can't because hiring managers are either implicitly or tacitly discriminating against older Americans. This crap is one of the main reasons why "Corporate America" has become part of the problem. Until this changes, Americans will be looking over their shoulder for when they will be the next victim of a layoff.
#Unemployment - 2 million Americans 55 and older are still out of work pbs.org/newshour/bb/bu… Brutal Job Search Reality for Older Americans
— Middleboro Jones (@Leadership_One) May 5, 2013
Friday, May 3, 2013
Middleboro Jones will be leaving Kandahar once again - This time, likely for good.
Katanga meets Middleboro Jones, who is dirty and injured from his travels around Afghanistan)
(As Indy, Marion and Sallah watch the Nazis loading the Ark of the Covenant onto a large truck)
Katanga: Mr. Jones! I've heard a lot about you, sir. Your appearance is exactly the way I imagined
After traveling around Afghanistan, I know how my counterpart, Indiana feels.....
The way things fall in place are both amazing and a never-ending mystery.....
I wound up in Afghanistan the first time in 2009 due to the down economy and a lay off......I was lucky to find a good company that has provided a great place to work, great people and very positive leadership. I couldn't be happier except for the aspect of wakiing up 7500 miles away from my home.....that part was NOT something I could ever be happy with.....'
Now after three runs through Afghanistan, the countdown for my departure as begun again. I have approximately 17 days in country departing towards the end of May. The game has changed here and the show is closing down. There will be some work here, but not like it was during the hey days of 2009 - 2011.
So Middleboro Jones has managed to work his way out of trouble again....not real trouble mind you, the trouble of waking up 7500 miles away from home......
I will be "escaping" Kandahar and the whole Afghanistan AOR by the end of the month.....
I will miss my coworkers and the company BUT I will not miss waking up in Afghanistan....Thank You very much.....
As for plans, my plan is to head home and to spend the summer enjoying life in Massachusetts. I have not been home for a summer since 2009 and I plan on enjoying all that it holds for BBQs, Time on the Beach and especially time with family & friends.
As for the rest....It's just like the scene where the Nazis are trying to take the Ark away from Tannis.....
(As Indy, Marion and Sallah watch the Nazis loading the Ark of the Covenant onto a large truck)
Indiana: Meet me at Omar's. Be ready for me. I'm going after that truck.
Sallah: How?
Indiana: I don't know, I'm making this up as I go
Roger that.
President Obama & Hillary Clinton - Guilty of Dereliction of Duty and Cowardice in the face of the enemy on Benghazi
As previously stated, I use the definitions of words to clarify a statement, such as today
Dereliction of duty generally refers a failure by a President or Senior Official to abide by the standing rules of the constitution or by-laws or perform the duties of the position appointed to.
Likewise, based on their actions, they have displayed cowardice in the face of the enemy. No words can express the contempt all decent people feel for such abject cowardice.
By any reasonable standard of conduct as officers of our government, the President and Secretary Clinton as guilty of both offenses based on their lies and inaction on Benghazi.
I leave it up to you to decide what you believe, but I feel that they have both committed actions which should require an impeachment for the President and charges against Hillary Clinton being responsible for the deaths of 4 men along with lying to Congress.
Enclosed is a great write up of the lies and Bullsh-t that has been put out by the White House.
It is a sad day when the American People allow these two incompetents to stonewall us about what happened on that sad day in our country's history.
Dereliction of duty generally refers a failure by a President or Senior Official to abide by the standing rules of the constitution or by-laws or perform the duties of the position appointed to.
Likewise, based on their actions, they have displayed cowardice in the face of the enemy. No words can express the contempt all decent people feel for such abject cowardice.
By any reasonable standard of conduct as officers of our government, the President and Secretary Clinton as guilty of both offenses based on their lies and inaction on Benghazi.
I leave it up to you to decide what you believe, but I feel that they have both committed actions which should require an impeachment for the President and charges against Hillary Clinton being responsible for the deaths of 4 men along with lying to Congress.
Enclosed is a great write up of the lies and Bullsh-t that has been put out by the White House.
It is a sad day when the American People allow these two incompetents to stonewall us about what happened on that sad day in our country's history.
The Benghazi Talking Points
ADVANCE ARTICLE from the May 13, 2013 issue.
Stephen F. Hayes
May 13, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 33
Even as the White House strove last week to move beyond questions about the Benghazi attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2012, fresh evidence emerged that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults. The Weekly Standard has obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and additional information about why the changes were made and by whom.
As intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of events unfolding in Libya, they concluded even before the assaults had ended that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved. Senior administration officials, however, sought to obscure the emerging picture and downplay the significance of attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. The frantic process that produced the changes to the talking points took place over a 24-hour period just one day before Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her now-famous appearances on the Sunday television talk shows. The discussions involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.
The exchange of emails is laid out in a 43-page report from the chairmen of five committees in the House of Representatives. Although the investigation was conducted by Republicans, leading some reporters and commentators to dismiss it, the report quotes directly from emails between top administration and intelligence officials, and it includes footnotes indicating the times the messages were sent. In some cases, the report did not provide the names of the senders, but The Weekly Standard has confirmed the identities of the authors of two critical emails—one indicating the main reason for the changes and the other announcing that the talking points would receive their final substantive rewrite at a meeting of top administration officials on Saturday, September 15.
The White House provided the emails to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees for a limited time and with the stipulation that the documents were available for review only and would not be turned over to the committees. The White House and committee leadership agreed to that arrangement as part of a deal that would keep Republican senators from blocking the confirmation of John Brennan, the president’s choice to run the CIA. If the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public.
The Weekly Standard sought comment from officials at the White House, the State Department, and the CIA, but received none by press time. Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern Standard Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. According to the House report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure.
After a briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA director David Petraeus, Democrat Dutch Ruppersburger, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, asked the intelligence community for unclassified guidance on what members of Congress could say in their public comments on the attacks. The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis prepared the first draft of a response to the congressman, which was distributed internally for comment at 11:15 a.m. on Friday, September 14 (Version 1 at right). This initial CIA draft included the assertion that the U.S. government “know[s] that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That draft also noted that press reports “linked the attack to Ansar al Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.” Ansar al Sharia, the CIA draft continued, aims to spread sharia law in Libya and “emphasizes the need for jihad.” The agency draft also raised the prospect that the facilities had been the subject of jihadist surveillance and offered a reminder that in the previous six months there had been “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy.”
After the internal distribution, CIA officials amended that draft to include more information about the jihadist threat in both Egypt and Libya. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy,” the agency had added by late afternoon. And: “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al Qaeda in Benghazi and Libya.” But elsewhere, CIA officials pulled back. The reference to “Islamic extremists” no longer specified “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda,” and the initial reference to “attacks” in Benghazi was changed to “demonstrations.”
The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”
In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.
There is little information about what happened at that meeting of the Deputies Committee. But according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above). Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.
What remained—and would be included in the final version of the talking points—was mostly boilerplate about ongoing investigations and working with the Libyan government, together with bland language suggesting that the “violent demonstrations”—no longer “attacks”—were spontaneous responses to protests in Egypt and may have included generic “extremists” (see Version 3 above).
If the story of what happened in Benghazi was dramatically stripped down from the first draft of the CIA’s talking points to the version that emerged after the Deputies Committee meeting, the narrative would soon be built up again. In ensuing days, administration officials emphasized a “demonstration” in front of the U.S. facility in Benghazi and claimed that the demonstrators were provoked by a YouTube video. The CIA had softened “attack” to “demonstration.” But as soon became clear, there had been no demonstration in Benghazi.
More troubling was the YouTube video. Rice would spend much time on the Sunday talk shows pointing to this video as the trigger of the chaos in Benghazi. “What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.” There is no mention of any “video” in any of the many drafts of the talking points.
Still, top Obama officials would point to the video to explain Benghazi. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even denounced the video in a sort of diplomatic public service announcement in Pakistan. In a speech at the United Nations on September 25, the president mentioned the video several times in connection with Benghazi.
On September 17, the day after Rice appeared on the Sunday shows, Nuland defended Rice’s performance during the daily briefing at the State Department. “What I will say, though, is that Ambassador Rice, in her comments on every network over the weekend, was very clear, very precise, about what our initial assessment of what happened is. And this was not just her assessment, it was also an assessment you’ve heard in comments coming from the intelligence community, in comments coming from the White House.”
It was a preview of the administration’s defense of its claims on Benghazi. After pushing the intelligence community to revise its talking points to fit the administration’s preferred narrative, administration officials would point fingers at the intelligence community when parts of that narrative were shown to be misleading or simply untrue.
And at times, members of the intelligence community appeared eager to help. On September 28, a statement from ODNI seemed designed to quiet the growing furor over the administration’s explanations of Benghazi. “In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available.”
The statement continued: “As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized attack carried out by extremists. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. However, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al Qaeda.”
The statement strongly implies that the information about al Qaeda-linked terrorists was new, a revision of the initial assessment. But it wasn’t. Indeed, the original assessment stated, without qualification, “we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”
The statement from the ODNI came not from James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, but from his spokesman, Shawn Turner. When the statement was released, current and former intelligence officials told The Weekly Standard that they found the statement itself odd and the fact that it didn’t come from Clapper stranger still. Clapper was traveling when he was first shown a draft of the statement to go out under his name. It is not an accident that it didn’t.
The revelations about exactly how the talking points were written, revised, and then embellished come amid renewed scrutiny of the administration’s handling of Benghazi. Fox News spoke to a Special Ops soldier last week who raised new questions about what happened during the attack, and the State Department’s inspector general acknowledged that the office would be investigating the production of the Administrative Review Board report on the attacks because of concerns that investigators did not speak to a broad spectrum of individuals with knowledge of the attack and its aftermath. On May 8, the House Oversight and Government Reform committee will hold another hearing on the matter. And Republicans in Congress have asked the administration to release all of the emails, something that would further clarify how the changes came about.
Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.
As intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of events unfolding in Libya, they concluded even before the assaults had ended that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved. Senior administration officials, however, sought to obscure the emerging picture and downplay the significance of attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. The frantic process that produced the changes to the talking points took place over a 24-hour period just one day before Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her now-famous appearances on the Sunday television talk shows. The discussions involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.
The exchange of emails is laid out in a 43-page report from the chairmen of five committees in the House of Representatives. Although the investigation was conducted by Republicans, leading some reporters and commentators to dismiss it, the report quotes directly from emails between top administration and intelligence officials, and it includes footnotes indicating the times the messages were sent. In some cases, the report did not provide the names of the senders, but The Weekly Standard has confirmed the identities of the authors of two critical emails—one indicating the main reason for the changes and the other announcing that the talking points would receive their final substantive rewrite at a meeting of top administration officials on Saturday, September 15.
The White House provided the emails to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees for a limited time and with the stipulation that the documents were available for review only and would not be turned over to the committees. The White House and committee leadership agreed to that arrangement as part of a deal that would keep Republican senators from blocking the confirmation of John Brennan, the president’s choice to run the CIA. If the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public.
The Weekly Standard sought comment from officials at the White House, the State Department, and the CIA, but received none by press time. Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern Standard Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. According to the House report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure.
After a briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA director David Petraeus, Democrat Dutch Ruppersburger, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, asked the intelligence community for unclassified guidance on what members of Congress could say in their public comments on the attacks. The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis prepared the first draft of a response to the congressman, which was distributed internally for comment at 11:15 a.m. on Friday, September 14 (Version 1 at right). This initial CIA draft included the assertion that the U.S. government “know[s] that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That draft also noted that press reports “linked the attack to Ansar al Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.” Ansar al Sharia, the CIA draft continued, aims to spread sharia law in Libya and “emphasizes the need for jihad.” The agency draft also raised the prospect that the facilities had been the subject of jihadist surveillance and offered a reminder that in the previous six months there had been “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy.”
After the internal distribution, CIA officials amended that draft to include more information about the jihadist threat in both Egypt and Libya. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy,” the agency had added by late afternoon. And: “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al Qaeda in Benghazi and Libya.” But elsewhere, CIA officials pulled back. The reference to “Islamic extremists” no longer specified “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda,” and the initial reference to “attacks” in Benghazi was changed to “demonstrations.”
The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”
In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.
There is little information about what happened at that meeting of the Deputies Committee. But according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above). Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.
What remained—and would be included in the final version of the talking points—was mostly boilerplate about ongoing investigations and working with the Libyan government, together with bland language suggesting that the “violent demonstrations”—no longer “attacks”—were spontaneous responses to protests in Egypt and may have included generic “extremists” (see Version 3 above).
If the story of what happened in Benghazi was dramatically stripped down from the first draft of the CIA’s talking points to the version that emerged after the Deputies Committee meeting, the narrative would soon be built up again. In ensuing days, administration officials emphasized a “demonstration” in front of the U.S. facility in Benghazi and claimed that the demonstrators were provoked by a YouTube video. The CIA had softened “attack” to “demonstration.” But as soon became clear, there had been no demonstration in Benghazi.
More troubling was the YouTube video. Rice would spend much time on the Sunday talk shows pointing to this video as the trigger of the chaos in Benghazi. “What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.” There is no mention of any “video” in any of the many drafts of the talking points.
Still, top Obama officials would point to the video to explain Benghazi. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even denounced the video in a sort of diplomatic public service announcement in Pakistan. In a speech at the United Nations on September 25, the president mentioned the video several times in connection with Benghazi.
On September 17, the day after Rice appeared on the Sunday shows, Nuland defended Rice’s performance during the daily briefing at the State Department. “What I will say, though, is that Ambassador Rice, in her comments on every network over the weekend, was very clear, very precise, about what our initial assessment of what happened is. And this was not just her assessment, it was also an assessment you’ve heard in comments coming from the intelligence community, in comments coming from the White House.”
It was a preview of the administration’s defense of its claims on Benghazi. After pushing the intelligence community to revise its talking points to fit the administration’s preferred narrative, administration officials would point fingers at the intelligence community when parts of that narrative were shown to be misleading or simply untrue.
And at times, members of the intelligence community appeared eager to help. On September 28, a statement from ODNI seemed designed to quiet the growing furor over the administration’s explanations of Benghazi. “In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available.”
The statement continued: “As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized attack carried out by extremists. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. However, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al Qaeda.”
The statement strongly implies that the information about al Qaeda-linked terrorists was new, a revision of the initial assessment. But it wasn’t. Indeed, the original assessment stated, without qualification, “we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”
The statement from the ODNI came not from James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, but from his spokesman, Shawn Turner. When the statement was released, current and former intelligence officials told The Weekly Standard that they found the statement itself odd and the fact that it didn’t come from Clapper stranger still. Clapper was traveling when he was first shown a draft of the statement to go out under his name. It is not an accident that it didn’t.
The revelations about exactly how the talking points were written, revised, and then embellished come amid renewed scrutiny of the administration’s handling of Benghazi. Fox News spoke to a Special Ops soldier last week who raised new questions about what happened during the attack, and the State Department’s inspector general acknowledged that the office would be investigating the production of the Administrative Review Board report on the attacks because of concerns that investigators did not speak to a broad spectrum of individuals with knowledge of the attack and its aftermath. On May 8, the House Oversight and Government Reform committee will hold another hearing on the matter. And Republicans in Congress have asked the administration to release all of the emails, something that would further clarify how the changes came about.
Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)