OPSEC & Protecting our Warriors - Something lost on the President

Those who go in harm's way learn and understand the first lesson of how to stay safe - OPSEC. This is short for " Operational Security ". The need to keep all info about mission, operations and tactics secure and by doing so, not allow the enemy to gain intelligence.

Too bad this simple concept doesn't extend to the President or the Vice President who have been using the SEALs exploits for political gain. They are " users ' and use people like the SEALs for their own benefit. By doing so, they put these warriors at risk.

Don't take my word for it, read the enclosed written by a Navy SEAL who feels pretty upset by what the idiot in the White House has been doing.


Obama Exploits the Navy SEALs
There may be political value in detailing how our special forces hunted bin Laden, but doing so threatens troop safety and future missions
By LEIF BABIN - Wall Street Journal

America's premier Special Operations force is once again in the headlines after a team of Navy SEALs rescued two hostages from captivity in Somalia last week. Elite U.S. forces have carried out such operations periodically over the past decade, always with skill and bravery. The difference in recent months is that the details of their work haven't remained secret. On the contrary, government officials have revealed them for political gain—endangering our forces in the process.

The floodgates opened after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden last May, and the Obama administration's lack of discretion was on display again at last week's State of the Union address. As President Obama entered the House chamber, in full view of the cameras, he pointed to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and exclaimed: "Good job tonight, good job tonight." Clearly something had happened that he wanted the world to know about.

After delivering his speech, which included multiple references to the bin Laden raid, the president again thanked Mr. Panetta. "That was a good thing tonight," he said as if to ensure that the viewing public, if they missed it initially, would get it a second time around.

Sure enough, shortly thereafter, the White House announced the successful rescue of the hostages in Somalia by U.S. Special Operations forces. Vice President Biden appeared on ABC's "Good Morning America" to highlight the success the next morning, and Mr. Panetta also publicly praised it. Then came the "anonymous U.S. officials" to provide extensive details of who conducted the raid and how. As with the bin Laden operation, the top-secret unit that carried it out was again front-page news, as were its methods and tactics.

Our special operators do not welcome this publicity. In fact, from conversations I've had in recent days, it's clear they are dismayed by it.

Adm. William H. McRaven, America's top special-operations commander, wrote in his 1996 book "Spec Ops" that there are six key principles of success in special operations. Of paramount importance—especially given the risk and sensitivity of the missions and the small units involved—is what the military calls "operational security," or maintaining secrecy. If the enemy learns details and can anticipate the manner and timing of an attack, the likelihood of success is significantly reduced and the risk to our forces is significantly increased.

This is why much of what our special-operators do is highly classified, and why military personnel cannot legally divulge it to the public. Yet virtually every detail of the bin Laden raid has appeared in news outlets across the globe—from the name of the highly classified unit to how the U.S. gathered intelligence, how many raiders were involved, how they entered the grounds, what aircraft they used, and how they moved through the compound. Such details were highly contained within the military and not shared even through classified channels. Yet now they are available to anyone with the click of a mouse.

It's difficult for military leaders to enforce strict standards of operational security on their personnel while the most senior political leadership is flooding the airwaves with secrets. The release of classified information has also opened a Pandora's box of former and retired SEALs, special operators, and military personnel who have chosen to violate their non-disclosure agreements and discuss intricate details of how such operations are planned and executed.

We've already begun seeing specific examples of strategic harm from the post-bin Laden leaks. In June, Pakistan arrested several individuals who allegedly provided information to the CIA in advance of the raid. One of those charged with treason was a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi. This Sunday, Mr. Panetta confirmed to "60 Minutes" that Dr. Afridi had provided "very helpful" intelligence to the CIA. That may have condemned Dr. Afridi to death or life imprisonment.

Such disclosures are catastrophic to U.S. intelligence networks, which often take years to develop. Recklessness not only puts lives at risk but could set U.S. intelligence-collection efforts back decades. Our ability to carry out future operations is significantly degraded—something not lost on Pakistan.

A week after the bin Laden raid, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates expressed dismay about Washington's loose lips, telling a town hall meeting of U.S. Marines at Camp Lejeune: "Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday—the next day."

Do the president and his top political advisers understand what's at stake for the special-operations forces who carry out these dangerous operations, or the long-term strategic consequences of divulging information about our most highly classified military assets and intelligence capabilities? It is infuriating to see political gain put above the safety and security of our brave warriors and our long-term strategic goals. Loose lips sink ships.

Mr. Babin is a former Navy SEAL officer who served three tours in Iraq, earning a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart. He left active duty six months ago

The Taliban are our enemy, regardless what Vice President Biden may think or say

“The Taliban per se is not our enemy,” Vice President Joe Biden

Really Mr. Vice President ?? Really ?? Then let's send you over to Pakistan without a security contingent and let you have a face-to-face discussion with our "non-enemy" Tailban. Let me know how that works out for you.

I would say that anyone who encounters the Taliban in person would have a different point-of-view. Let's ask the British Doctor they kidnapped this week who was working for the International Red Cross or the 59 year old British Nurse they grabbed in December. Bet they hold a different point-of-view.

The Taliban are NARCO TERRORISTS, plain & simple. They like to wrap themselves in a jihadist cover and claim they are fighting for Islam, but in reality, it is all about the drug trade that comes from the Afghanistan/Pakistan region.

The Taliban and their allies the Haquanni, are all about terrorizing the populace, money, weapons and drugs. Their goal is to control all the aforementioned items in the AF/PAK region. The political posturing is folly as they don't care about Western issues like " Afghanistan " or " Pakistan ". Our Western concepts of countries and such are not relevant as they are tribal and don't really care about where the border line is drawn.

One certainty is that our present administration acts foolish when they play politics with the lives of our soldiers and emboldens our enemies when they speak foolishly about who we are fighting.

The Taliban are our enemy. They will wait us out, and when we leave Afghanistan, the bloodshed that they will inflict upon the people there will be horrific.

Mr. Vice President, with all due respect, you haven't got a clue. The enclosed news story is a prima facie example of the Taliban's true message to us and those who would be our allies over there.

A few thousand US Soldiers wounded or killed by the Taliban were unavailable for comment.

15 Kidnapped Pakistani Soldiers Executed by the Taliban in a Retaliatory Gesture
By SALMAN MASOOD and ISMAIL KHAN
NY TIMES: January 5, 2012

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Taliban insurgents executed 15 security soldiers who had been recently kidnapped and dumped their bodies on a hilltop in northwestern Pakistan on Thursday, in retaliation for the killing of a militant commander by government forces, government and military officials said.

The soldiers were kidnapped Dec. 23 after dozens of Taliban insurgents overran a fort in one of the restive tribal regions straddling the border with Afghanistan. Officials said they had tried but failed to secure the captives’ release.

The executions followed the death of a high-ranking Taliban commander on Sunday and came just days after local news media reported that several factions of the Taliban had vowed not to attack the Pakistani military.

The bullet-ridden bodies of the soldiers, members of the Frontier Constabulary, were spotted by local tribesmen on Thursday morning after they were dumped in Mir Ali, a subdistrict in the North Waziristan tribal region. The Frontier Constabulary, run by the Pakistani police authorities, has about 70,000 paramilitary soldiers who operate checkpoints in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Province and provide security at foreign embassies and consulates in major cities across Pakistan.

“From the look of it, it seems they had been shot dead early Thursday morning,” said a senior security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “We have been trying to get them freed,” the official said, “and we have had contact with their captors. And until last night the indications that we had were very, very positive. God knows what happened afterwards.”

Farther south, armed men in the city of Quetta kidnapped a British doctor who worked for the International Committee of the Red Cross on Thursday, said Sitara Jabeen, a spokeswoman for the aid group. She said she knew of no motive for the abduction, which took place near his home.

The executions in northwestern Pakistan were claimed by a Taliban spokesman, Ihsanullah Ihsan, who described them as an “act of revenge” for the killing of militants in the Khyber tribal region on Sunday. He said the group would release a video of the killings “soon” and threatened more attacks.

A dozen militants, including Qari Kamran, a local Taliban commander, were killed in the Khyber tribal region on Sunday after security forces attacked a militant hide-out. Mr. Kamran was considered a high-ranking Taliban commander who oversaw terrorist attacks and activities in Khyber and his native Nowshera district in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa.

Security officials said they had expected retaliatory attacks because Mr. Kamran’s killing was considered a major success.

Last week, reports emerged that Afghan Taliban and leaders of Al Qaeda had urged Pakistani Taliban militants to put aside their internal differences and focus on attacking the American-led forces inside Afghanistan.

There have also been reports of negotiations on ending violence between Pakistan’s government and some Taliban factions, although military officials deny the existence of such talks.

The executions show that, despite a recent decrease in militant-related violence and suicide attacks, some Taliban militants are unwilling to end their attacks, analysts here said. A report released recently by an Islamabad-based research organization, the Pak Institute for Peace Studies, stated that militant-related violence had decreased by 24 percent in the last two years.

“The Taliban are not to be believed because past deals have shown that they end up violating their own peace deals with the government and use them to regroup and regain strength,” said Omar R. Quraishi, an editor of The Express Tribune, a Karachi-based English-language newspaper. He said the executions also highlighted differences among Taliban factions, because some groups seemed to support ending the fighting against Pakistani security forces, while others continued with attacks.

Salman Masood reported from Islamabad, and Ismail Khan from Peshawar, Pakistan

The DNC raises the flag of surrender....Their resolution provides aid and comfort to the enemies of our way of life.

The DNC has shown that they are clueless to the nature of the situation in Afghanistan. They are trying to set a timetable for the War in Afghanistan which plays into the hands of the Taliban...As the Taliban has stated publicly, they will wait us out. Their saying has been, " The West have the watches, we have the time.."

To walk away from our responsibility to assist the people of Afghanistan is similar to what these feckless bastards wanted to do to Iraq also.

2011 will be a watershed year for this conflict. The Taliban has retreated to the Waziristan area of the AF/PAK border and the people of Afghanistan are starting to take back their country, similar to what the Iraqis did in the "Awakening". It is everyone's hope that we can resolve the situation sooner rather than later BUT there can only be Victory as to surrender Afghanistan to these murderous bastards is unaccpetable.

To cut & run as the DNC requests would be disastrous and only embolden our enemies who would like nothing more than to reestablish Afghanistan as their base of operations.

The DNC needs to understand that the price of Liberty is high, but we have always been willing to pay that price as the alternative is surrender to the dark forces who would make this world a sad place.

It is truly sad that the DNC is nothing but a sad and feckless group that has followed the failed ideals of people like Nancy Pelosi.....the Democrats that came before like Truman, FDR and JFK would be horrified by the lack of will shown by today's DNC to defend Liberty.

JFK's words echo across the years, and set the standard for what out nation has done to help those who needed our help:

" Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Jack had it right - The idjits at the present day DNC are unworthy to stand in his shadow.....They knowling provide aid and comfort to the enemies of our way of life. This world is not what we want and to continue to allow our country to be attacked because we failed to act would be to surrender the security of our nation.

DNC Pressures Obama, Passes Resolution Endorsing Swift End To Afghanistan War
Posted: 02/26/11

WASHINGTON -- Members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) gave President Obama a rare push on Saturday, adopting a resolution attempting to encourage the administration to move toward a speedier withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The resolution adopted Saturday states that "the Democratic Party supports prioritizing job creation and a swift withdrawal of U.S. armed forces and military contractors in Afghanistan which must include a significant and sizable reduction no later than July 2011."

"The passage of my resolution places the Democratic Party squarely on the side of American people who overwhelmingly support a swift withdrawal from Afghanistan, beginning with a significant and sizeable reduction in U.S. troop levels by no later than July of this year," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who submitted the resolution. Other submitters were DNC Vice Chairs Donna Brazile and Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) and DNC Secretary Alice Germond.

The Obama administration's policy is to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in July 2011 and fully transfer security responsibilities over to Afghan forces by 2014. The pace of withdrawal is yet to be determined.

DNC resolutions are meant to express the sentiment of the party's members. Other measures approved at the winter meeting this year, which took place Feb. 24-26, include ones honoring the work of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), expressing solidarity with Wisconsin's protesters and memorializing Elizabeth Edwards.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.

The resolution:

Resolution Supporting Ending the War in Afghanistan Now and Transferring the Funding to Job Creation, other Crucial Domestic Priorities and Deficit Reduction
Submitted by: Hon. Barbara Lee, California

Donna Brazile, DNC Vice Chair/District of Columbia

Hon. Mike Honda, DNC Vice Chair/California

Alice Germond, DNC Secretary/West Virginia


WHEREAS, the United States has been involved in war in Afghanistan for almost a decade and remains militarily engaged in what has become the longest war in American history; and

WHEREAS, the mounting costs of the war in Afghanistan, now totaling over $100 billion a year, have constrained efforts to invest in job creation and in strengthening our country and our economy; and

WHEREAS, according to a Gallup Poll released February 2, 2011, 72% of Americans favor action to "speed up the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan"; and

WHEREAS, President Obama supports a transition to an Afghan-led security arrangement in Afghanistan "because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people's"; and

WHEREAS, a diplomatic solution in Afghanistan that emphasizes economic development, political reconciliation and inclusion, the engagement of regional and global stakeholders, and the safeguarding of basic human rights is essential to ensure long-term stability in Afghanistan and the surrounding region; and

WHEREAS, military and intelligence officials agree that the situation in Afghanistan will not ultimately be resolved by a military solution; and

WHEREAS, the national and economic security of the United States depend upon a national defense strategy which addresses the modern threat of global terrorism in an effective, sustainable, and comprehensive manner; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Democratic Party recognizes the enormous strain placed on the U.S. military servicemembers, and their families since 2001 as a result of continuing engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan and remains committed to ensuring that our troops have the support that they require when deployed as well as the care that they and their families need and deserve when they return home;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Democratic Party supports prioritizing job creation and a swift withdrawal of U.S. armed forces and military contractors in Afghanistan which must include a significant and sizable reduction no later than July 2011