Taliban to revive policy of stoning and flogging women

 

Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada

 

Taliban Leader Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada announces a return to the policy of stoning women: 

"We will soon implement the punishment for adultery. We will flog women in public. We will stone them to death in public. We will bring shari'ah to this land.”

How enlightened - stoning and flogging. 

Stoning as a form of capital punishment goes back to ancient times. Stoning appears to have been the standard method of capital punishment in ancient Israel. The Torah and Talmud prescribe stoning as punishment for a number of offenses, however, Rabbinic Judaism developed a number of procedural constraints which made these laws practically unenforceable. 

Although stoning is not mentioned in the Quran, classical Islamic jurisprudence imposed stoning as a shari'ah punishment for adultery based on hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad). 

Only a few isolated instances of legal stoning are recorded in pre-modern history of the Islamic world. In recent times, stoning has been a legal or customary punishment in Iran, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, parts of Nigeria, Afghanistan, Brunei, and tribal parts of Pakistan. That said, it is rarely practiced - it appears that is about to change in Afghanistan. 

If you want to see just how barbaric Islamic stoning is, I recommend the excellent movie The Stoning of Soraya M, a 2008 movie about the stoning of a young woman in Iran.
 

Scene from "The Stoning of Soraya M"

The movie stars the talented Shohreh Aghdashloo, Mozhan Navabi, and Jim Caviezel, and is available for free on YouTube.

I will caution that the stoning scenes are graphic and intense. The requirements for stoning are quite precise, as shown here (click here for a larger view):

Welcome to the 7th Century.

Tweet

The fall of Kabul – who did not see this coming?

 

A U.S. helicopter flies over Kabul (Rahmat Gul - AP)

Thanks to the Biden Administration’s disastrous handling of the withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, the world is about to witness another botched evacuation reminiscent of the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975. Those of us who served in Vietnam will never forget the disturbing images of Huey helicopters evacuating people from the rooftop of the American embassy.

 

It appears that history is about to repeat itself.

 

President Biden announced, probably against the advice of his senior military leadership, that the United States would withdraw all of its forces by the end of August. I can’t say that I blame Biden for not listening to the same generals who created the absolute disaster that Afghanistan has become.

 

Let’s review how we got here. Soon after the al-Qa’idah attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush delivered an ultimatum to the Taliban to surrender ‘Usamah bin Ladin to the United States. The Taliban refused, triggering the U.S. invasion of the country and the removal of the Taliban, to be replaced by the Northern Alliance. The American military began operations to eliminate al-Qa’idah, including bin Ladin.

 

By early December, the U.S. and its allies (including Northern Alliance, British, and German forces) had forced the remnants of al-Qa’idah to seek shelter from the relentless air attacks in the Tora Bora cave complex near the border with Pakistan. An Afghan militia leader claimed that he had negotiated the surrender of al-Qa’idah, including bin Ladin, and they were working out the “modalities of bin Ladin’s surrender.”

 

I remember shaking my head in disbelief. Rather than committing U.S. forces to the capture or killing of bin Ladin, we agreed to “outsource” it to an unreliable Afghan warlord. I said to anyone who would listen that there is no way this group of Afghans was going to turn over a fellow Muslim, a fellow warrior, to the United States. It was just not going to happen. President Bush refused to commit U.S. forces to an attack, believing Pakistani lies that they would apprehend bin Ladin if he tried to enter Pakistan.

 

We all know what happened – this “working out the modalities” was merely a ploy to buy time to allow tribal forces on both sides of the border to spirit bin Ladin into Pakistan, where he remained until U.S. forces tracked him down in Abbottabad, Pakistan on May 2, 2011. The Pakistanis had no idea where he was for almost ten years? I find that hard to believe.

 

After the end of the Battle of Tora Bora, I maintain that the United States had achieved its major objective of the invasion of Afghanistan – to remove al-Qa’idah from the country. The survivors of the organization who accompanied bin Ladin into Pakistan dispersed to other areas to continue the fight – Iraq, Syria, Yemen, the Maghreb.

 

So why did the United States feel compelled to remain in Afghanistan, a country that has been known as “the graveyard of empires?” You would think that knowledgeable people in the American intelligence, military, and diplomatic communities would have recognized the folly of committing a large military force to Afghanistan except to oversee the orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops.

 

For reasons that I cannot fathom, some bright light, probably at the State Department, came up with the idea that we should try to introduce Western-style democracy into this tribal society. This phenomena – starting out to do one thing (removing al-Qai’dah) and morphing into another (nation building) – is called “mission creep.” We Americans excel at it.

 

The obvious, but faulty, analogy that some will point out is the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II. There is nothing remotely similar to reintroducing democratic institutions in Europe and creating democracy from nothing in Afghanistan.

 

Of course, the first step in any of these efforts is to establish security – that usually means more troops. The American military presence continued to grow to combat the threat still posed by the resurgent Taliban. In my view, at that time, the Taliban did not represent a threat to the United States. Al-Qa’idah did, and was dealt with.

 

Did I want the Taliban to resume control of Afghanistan? No. Did I think that the continued presence of American and allied troops would prevent it? No. I thought the presence of foreign troops would only be able to postpone the Taliban’s return to power, but in the end not prevent it. Why didn’t our supposedly bright military leaders tell the President(s) that? If you can’t win a war, don’t fight it.

 

As we have seen time and time again, a smaller, committed force can outlast a superpower and defeat the incompetent indigenous forces supposedly trained and equipped by their sponsors. The Afghan army was never a capable fighting force, despite the huge expenditure of American and allied resources and massive training efforts.

Why not? Because their hearts were not in it. Most of the troops willing to join the Afghan military or security forces were doing it for a paycheck, not a burning desire to keep democracy alive in Afghanistan.

 

On the other hand, the Taliban fighters are true believers. They will fight to the death to achieve their objective – the reintroduction of an Islamic state in Afghanistan. They also enjoy enough popular support to continue to fight on despite the efforts of the United States and its allies.

 

It is only the presence of foreign forces that prevent the Taliban from retaking the entire country. With the irresponsible manner of the Biden withdrawal, it is only a matter of time – I give it days – before the Taliban regain control.

 

In a press conference on July 8^th, Biden claimed that a Taliban victory was not inevitable, citing the fact that the Afghan military of 300,000 was among the best equipped in the world, and capable of defeating the 75,000 Taliban fighters. Just two days ago, the Pentagon spokesman claimed that Kabul was not in imminent danger. Clearly, neither one of them has a grasp on the reality of the situation.

 

My bottom line: We should have left Afghanistan after ‘Usamah bin Ladin was allowed to “escape” to Pakistan in an act of perfidy in 2001, or at the latest in early 2002, and prevented the loss of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

 

 

Tweet

“Yeah, thank you, Charlie Wilson” – the law of unintended consequences

 

In a recently aired episode of the CBS television series Seal Team, there was a quick phrase that probably went unnoticed by most of the viewing audience. Even if they heard it, they probably are not aware of the meaning.

 

In Season 3, Episode 19, Bravo Team is operating in a village in Afghanistan. Overwatch for the operation is being provided by a Predator drone. As shown in this screen capture, a surface-to-air missile is launched at and hits the drone.

The loss of the drone caused a loss of communications with the operational headquarters, and a loss of situational awareness. As the team realizes what has just happened, one of the SEALs remarks, “Thank you, Charlie Wilson.”

For those viewers who were not aware of the level of U.S. involvement in opposing the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980’s, the remark may not mean anything. To those of us who were involved in the American effort to support the Afghan resistance fighters – the self-proclaimed mujahidin (holy warriors) – it was a reminder of the concept of unintended consequences.

 

From 1987 until Saddam Husayn invaded Kuwait in 1990 and I was deployed to Saudi Arabia, I was assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon as the Assistant Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East and South Asia.

 

When I was not in Baghdad working the operation assisting Iraqi forces, my office was peripherally involved in the Defense Department's slice of the CIA program supporting the Afghan mujahidin - "holy warriors" opposing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That Defense Department support included the delivery of the FIM-92 Stinger shoulder-fired air defense missile.

 

At some point in America's support - I think it was 1986 - Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson insisted that the "muj" needed an air defense weapon to combat the heavily armed Soviet MI-24 assault helicopter gunship, the Hind. He insisted that they be provided the U.S.-made state-of-the-art Stinger.

Afghan mujahidin with Stinger missile

Charlie Wilson was a charming Southern gentleman. When I visited his office the first time, the launcher that fired the first Stinger in Afghanistan was hanging on the wall – he was extremely proud of that. He liked to talk about the Confederacy, in fact, much of the art in his office portrays battles of the Civil War. When my boss remarked about a depiction of Pickett's July 3, 1863 unsuccessful charge at Gettysburg, he quietly nodded his head and remarked, "If Pickett had been successful, we'd be having this conversation in Richmond...."

 

Back to the Stinger. There was absolutely no interest at the Pentagon in supplying the world's most lethal shoulder-fired air defense system to a bunch of tribesmen in Afghanistan – for several reasons. First, we believed they could have achieved the same effect with lesser-capability Soviet weapons, such as the readily-available (and not traceable to the United States) SA-7.

 

Second, and more importantly, no one wanted the Stinger in the hands of potential bad guys. Since we had to provide all of the weapons and equipment via the Pakistani intelligence service – the notoriously unreliable ISID – we were concerned that money talks and the Stinger would find itself where we did not want it to go.

 

We were proven right in October 1987 when the U.S. Navy seized the Iran Ajr while it was laying mines in the Persian Gulf. Found on the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) vessel was a battery of a Stinger launcher. The serial number of the battery was traceable to the CIA Afghan Task Group – it had been sent to Pakistan destined for the muj.

 

I am not sure where it was diverted, but I am betting on the ISID. We in the HUMINT (human intelligence) business used to joke that you had to recruit an "x" (the nationality of your choice), but you could buy a Pakistani – in south Asia, money talks. To make matters worse, during the operation, another Iranian boat fired two Stingers at a U.S. Navy A-6. We concluded that weapons we had sent to support anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan were being used against us in the Persian Gulf.

 

This is euphemistically called "unintended consequences."

 

When Congressman Wilson was in Pakistan on an official visit in 1987, he wanted to use the U.S. Defense Attaché's C-12 aircraft to fly somewhere. Fine, but Wilson wanted to take his girlfriend along. The Defense Attaché, a USAF colonel, said, "Sir, you mean your assistant." Wilson – looking for a fight – insisted that the colonel was going to take his girlfriend along. The colonel refused; it caused us (well, me) hours of grief trying to save the airplane once Wilson got back to Washington.

 

All in all, am I a fan of Charlie Wilson's? Let's see – a former Navy intelligence officer, a drunken womanizer, but someone who got things done. His heart was in the right place, but allowing the Stinger to end up in the hands of the IRGC, the Taliban, and who knows who else, is the epitome of unintended consequences. 

Tweet

Comments on the U.S. - Taliban agreement on Afghanistan

My former colleague Zalmay Khalilzad signs the agreement with the Taliban

I was interviewed by an Azerbaijani press outlet about the U.S.-Taliban agreement on Afghanistan. Since it is unlikely that many of my normal readers and followers monitor the media in Azerbaijan, I have provided a copy of my responses.


Q. On Saturday, February 29, representatives of the United States and the Taliban inked a peace agreement in Doha to end the 18–year–long war. That agreement would see the U.S. withdraw its troops from Afghanistan in return for security guaranties by the Taliban. That also paved the way for intra-Afghan talks. At the first, how can you assess the importance of that deal?

A. An agreement to end the longest war in American history is an important deal – the question is, is it a good deal? In my opinion, it’s a mechanism for the United States to withdraw its forces and close the chapter on 18 years of wasted effort.

Let’s look at the history of why American forces are there. Following the al-Qa’idah attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, American forces invaded Afghanistan, launching Operation Enduring Freedom. In a rather quick operation, the Taliban government was removed and al-Qa’idah fighters pushed towards the Pakistan border.

Once Usamah bin Ladin and his fighters were holed up in the Tora Bora mountains, there was a foolhardy agreement with the Afghan Northern Alliance that they would broker the surrender of bin Ladin. Any experienced observer of events in this region realized that this was never going to happen. Who knows exactly what happened – money changed hands, tribal and factional loyalties came into play, Pakistani intelligence – whatever. The bottom line was that bin Ladin escaped across the frontier.

At that point, the goals of the American invasion had either been met, or were no longer achievable. Al-Qa’idah was no longer present in the country, and at the time, the Taliban did not present a threat to the United States.

In my assessment, it was the time to withdraw. But no, we have to start “nation building.” I am not sure the reason, but it was a mistake. I bristle at comparisons of our misguided efforts in Afghanistan to the rebuilding of Europe after World War II under the Marshall Plan. That effort was to restore European democracies, while the effort in Afghanistan was to create a democracy where it does not seem to fit.


Q. The United States has fought Taliban militants in Afghanistan since the invasion after the September 11 attacks. But now the U.S. has signed an agreement with the Taliban following the long–term successful diplomatic negotiations with it. From your viewpoint, what happened for Washington to take this step?

A. As I see it, the Trump Administration is following a campaign promise to end “unending wars.” The United States is weary of Afghanistan. Despite our best efforts to create some form of representative government, it just has not worked. Perhaps we have finally come to the realization that creation of these types of government must come from within, not without.

Are we abandoning the peoples of Afghanistan to their own devices? I say “peoples” since Afghanistan is not an ethnicity, but merely a geographic designation of an area that contains Tajiks, Pashtuns, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Aimaks, Sayyids, Turkmen, Baluchis, etc.

Unfortunately, I suspect that in a few short years, there will be a Taliban-dominated government again, after a hiatus of two decades.


Q. In your opinion, does the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan pave the way for regional powers to enter the country?

A. Possibly. There are economic interests in the country that China and Pakistan may try to consolidate. I assume that there will be attempts by Iran and Pakistan to exert political influence in the country, hoping to shape whatever new government emerges – and it will, the current government is doomed to fail.

Washington’s position? As long as whatever leadership exists or emerges does not pose a threat to the United States, Americans do not care. However, should a group like al-Qa’idah or the nascent ISIS presence there, appear to be a threat to the United States, there may a revisit – short, swift, and vicious – of U.S. military action.


Q. At a press conference, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that enduring peace in Afghanistan would not be possible unless Taliban militants break ties with Al-Qa'idah and other terrorist groups, and sit down for intra-Afghan talks with the Kabul government. Do you think that this agreement can bring peace and stability to Afghanistan?

A. I don’t. The Taliban signed an agreement that ends the fighting with the United States. The United States is withdrawing its forces – that is what the Taliban want. Once that happens, I see no reason for them to honor any agreement. I fully expect that once American forces are gone, there may be a “decent interval” in which they pay lip service to inter-Afghan talks, but in the end, they will exercise their military capabilities and move against anyone that resists what they believe is their inevitable rise to power.

Peace and stability, maybe. At what price? It will truly become what its official name implies – the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

Tweet

Another intelligence analyst betrays his country - collusion with a reporter?

Traitor Daniel Everette Hale - the indictment - Traitor Jeremy Scahill

Daniel Everette Hale becomes the latest in a series of intelligence personnel to be charged with either treason, espionage, mishandling classified information or divulging classified material to unauthorized persons.*

This case is a bit different, however. Here we may have active collusion between a defense contractor (Hale) - with leftist "reporter" Jeremy Scahill. I realize it is a reporter's job to uncover government malfeasance, but in this case Scahill may have crossed the line between journalism and criminal activity.

Hale served in the U.S. Air Force from July 2009 to July 2013. During that time, he was assigned as a cryptologic linguist to the National Security Agency (NSA). During this assignment, Hale deployed to Afghanistan where he supported drone intelligence collection and kinetic kill/capture operations against a variety of targets.

After he left the Air Force in July 2013, he began work for a defense contractor with duties at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). During all of this time, Hale held a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance. Hale was arrested on May 9 for unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Read the now unsealed indictment.

Reading federal indictments involves wading through a lot of legalese/law enforcement jargon. Here is a quick synopsis of what happened, and how Scahill acted more like a foreign intelligence officer rather than a professional journalist. In a perfect world, Scahill would be indicted as a co-conspirator and be in jail along with Hale.

In April 2013, while still on active duty and assigned to NSA, Hale sought out and personally met with Scahill in the Washington, DC. After that meeting, Scahill told Hale he wanted to tell "Hale's story" on drone operations in Afghanistan.

Contacts and meetings continued through July when Hale separated from Air Force, and beyond. Hale had provided his unclassified resume which described his participation in drone operations. He also revealed his experience in classification and declassification procedures, an indication that he fully understood the sensitive nature of classified material.

At this point, Scahill advised Hale to set up an encrypted chat capability using the Jabber program. In December 2013, Hale began work for defense contractor Leidos with duties at NGA headquarters on Fort Belvoir near Springfield, Virginia. Hale and Scahill used the encrypted chat program at least three times between September 2013 and February 2014.

Immediately after an encrypted chat on February 27, Hale accessed and printed one document marked Top Secret, and five documents marked Secret. None of the six documents were related to Hale's duties at NGA.

All six documents printed were later published in The Intercept, a publication of which Scahill is an editor and notorious for publishing classified government documents. It gained fame by publishing material provided to it by another traitor, Edward Snowden.

While employed as an NGA contractor, Hale printed 36 documents; 23 were unrelated to his duties at the agency. Of these 23 documents, Hale provided at least 17 to the Scahill; all were subsequently published in The Intercept.

On a related note, forensic analysis of Hale's computers and devices indicated the presence of Tor software and the Tails operating system, which were recommended by The Intercept in an article on how to anonymously “leak” documents. I am sure this is not coincidental.

As a professional intelligence officer, I consider what Scahill did to be tasking. In fact, since Hale obtained employment with Leidos that would place him at NGA headquarters, it will be interesting to find out if Hale was encouraged (tasked) to seek that job position by Scahill.

It further appears that since Hale began providing documents to Scahill almost immediately after beginning work at NGA, this amounts to what we in the intelligence business call "collection tasking." Note that Hale only worked for the contractor for a total of eight months, quitting one month after he provided the last document to Scahill. One could draw the conclusion that he accomplished what he had set out to do, or possibly fulfilled his taking, and then left the company.

We will eventually know exactly the relationship between the so-called journalist and his traitorous accomplice. In virtually all of these cases, the accused enters into a plea deal in return for lesser charges. In return, the accused agrees to provide a full accounting of his/her criminal activity.

Hale's lawyers will undoubtedly try the "whistleblower" defense. Whistleblowers, of course, deserve protection when they follow the guidelines. First, report via the chain of command, then the inspector general of the organization, and possibly even appropriately cleared congressional bodies. Note that the media is not among these channels.

Hopefully, Hale's future allocution will include details of Scahill's involvement into convincing, coercing, or even paying - Hale to violate his oath of allegiance to the United States, as well as a series of federal statutes.

Reporting on government operations is one thing - tasking, aiding and abetting the unauthorized release of classified national defense information is another.

We know Hale violated the law. If what Scahill did does not constitute criminal activity, it should.

______________________
* See my earlier comments on two other former U.S. Air Force intelligence linguists who have been indicted and/or convicted of similar crimes.

- Reality (is the) Winner - former NSA contractor pleads guilty

- The indictment of former Air Force intelligence specialist Monica Elfriede Witt


Tweet

"Taliban John" Walker Lindh to be released - justice undone

Inmate 45426-083

John Walker Lindh, or more properly, Inmate 45426-083, will be released from the federal penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana on May 23. Lindh is fortunate to still be alive, and fortunate to not be serving a life sentence at the Supermax prison in Colorado - both of which I find disappointing.

Lindh, now 38, is being released after serving 17 years of a 20 year sentence, a sentence reached in a plea deal to preclude the government from being questioned about Lindh's treatment after his capture on a battlefield in Afghanistan while fighting for the Taliban.

Many (including me) believe that Lindh could have prevented the death of CIA officer Mike Spann during a prison uprising in Mazar-i-Sharif. He was aware of the impending violence, but remained silent.

Inmate 45426-083 now prefers the nom de guerre Abu Sulayman al-Irlandi, reflecting his status as an Irish citizen - he acquired Irish citizenship through his grandmother, and has stated that he plans to emigrate to Ireland after his release. Fortunately, that is not going to happen anytime soon.

A federal judge has ruled that "Abu Sulayman" will be under supervised release for three years. Theoretically, during that time, he is precluded from having an internet-capable device without permission from his probation office, cannot view or access extremist or terrorism videos, and must allow the probation office to monitor his internet use.

Lindh must also undergo mental health counseling. I doubt that will do much good - he's not mentally ill, he's a committed jihadist.

Lindh has shown no remorse whatsoever for his past terrorist activities. Despite his father's continued crusade to whitewash his son's treasonous actions, he is a committed Islamist terrorist, and there is no reason to believe that he will not rejoin the jihad against the United States.

Frank Lindh and  Marilyn Walker

His father repeatedly speaks out about the government's "persecution" of his son. In his own words:

"John loves America. We love America. John did not do anything against America. John did not take up arms against America. He never meant to harm any American, and he never did harm any American. John is innocent of these charges."

Tell that to the family of Mike Spann.

At his sentencing, Lindh said he went to Afghanistan and joined the Taliban to fight what he saw as the anti-Muslim Northern Alliance and learned later about the Taliban’s close connection to al-Qa'idah leader Usamah bin Ladin. "I want the American people to know that had I realized then what I know now about the Taliban, I never would have joined them."

Dear Inmate 45426-083: I didn't believe you then and I don't believe you now. If it was up to me, you'd either be dead or rotting in an Afghan prison.

Tweet

Afghanistan is a disaster

I was supposed to be on CNN today, but was pre-empted. This is what I would have said.

Afghanistan is a disaster, one which we partially created. You can blame both the Bush 43 and Obama 44 administrations for getting us where we are. That said, after two years of the Trump 45 Administration, we see no improvement, just more of the same claims of progress, improvement, etc. Yet, no one has claimed "victory."

When the highest ranking officer in the country, US Marine Corps General Joe Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declares in an international forum that the "Taliban are not losing," you have a problem. "Not losing" can mean two things: they're winning, or this is a stalemate.

Up until this summer, I was willing to give the Pentagon the benefit of the doubt about who was winning, but after the debacle in Ghazni that required a substantial intervention with American combat forces, I would say the Taliban now have the upper hand.

Why? Why after 17 years are we still involved in a small war thousands of miles from home, against an inconsequential adversary?

The answer is simple - we left the fight.

There never was much real interest in Afghanistan other than the removal of al-Qa'idah and the killing/capture of Usamah bin Ladin. That required the defeat of the Taliban government (great job by the US military and CIA), but we made the ridiculous "agreement" with the US-allied Northern Alliance at Tora Bora on the Pakistan border where we basically allowed Usamah bin Ladin to escape to Pakistan. After that mistake, there was no real role for a continued US military presence in Afghanistan.

But no, we have to "nation build," hoping that American style democracy would catch on in the country. Naivete on steroids. We tried anyway, to no avail.

In 2014, President Obama told the Taliban what date the US was ending its combat mission in the country and withdrawing the bulk of our forces. (We did the same thing in Iraq.) The message: "We're leaving, its all yours if you are willing to just wait." This is the folly of telling your enemy when you are leaving and going home.

During that misguided calculation, someone realized that we can't abandon the fledgling - and failing - Afghan government to the easily-predicted and totally-expected resurgence of the Taliban.

We spent massive amounts of money creating and training the Afghan army and security forces, but it hasn't worked. After years of training and billions of dollars - not to mention our most precious asset, the continued bloodshed by American troops - it is a dismal failure.

News flash - the Afghans just don't function well in Western-style military formations. Compare that to the Afghan mujahdin we trained in the 1980's, and to the Taliban, created by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) - light guerrilla forces that are very effective.

Over the past year, the Taliban has retaken from the Afghan army much of the territory that American forces originally took from them, often at great cost. I am not sure pouring more American blood and treasure will make a difference. Yet, it gets worse - the deteriorating situation has allowed al-Qai'dah to return to the country, as well an increasing ISIS presence. The country is fast becoming "radical Islamist central."

The Afghan military and security forces are not going to be able to defeat these Islamist forces. Unfortunately, if the defeat of these groups is our policy (and I am not sure that it really is), it will require US (and NATO/other allies, but the bulk of it will be American) combat troops directly engaging them, not by troops tasked with "training and advising" the Afghans. It seems we are averse to actually winning wars anymore, instead opting to seek political objectives or "outcomes."

Now that the Bush and Obama administrations have gotten us here, I'd like to know what the Trump Administration has in mind, because what we're doing now is not working.

Tweet

Requiescat in pace - Lt Gen Bernard Trainor, USMC (Ret)

Lieutenant General Bernard "Mick" Trainor, USMC (Ret)

It is with profound sadness that I acknowledge the passing of a legend and personal mentor.

Lieutenant General Bernard E. Trainor, United States Marine Corps (Retired), has died at age 89 of cancer. Time has taken its toll on yet another of America's finest warriors, those who we as a country send forward to fight our wars. The general was a combat veteran of the Korean War and two tours in Vietnam. I was honored to know Mick, as he was called by his friends, although I never called him anything but General.

There will be enough articles and recitations of his accomplishments that I will not review them here. I will merely recount my personal recollections of the general.

Shortly after returning from an overseas tour (was that vague enough?) in 1987, I was assigned to an office at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) responsible for operations and analysis of the various situations in the Middle East and South Asia. Our office was authorized to provide background information to the press - General Trainor at that time was a correspondent for the New York Times.*

In late 1987 and early 1988, there were several major issues facing the United States - Afghanistan and our support for the mujahidin, the Iran-Iraq War and our nascent support for the Saddam Husayn government, and the threat posed by the Libyan government under Mu'amar Qadhafi's acquisition of chemical weapons. It was a busy time. Our office routinely provided interviews to General Trainor.

American support for the Iraqis in the Iran-Iraq War had just begun when I met the general for the first time. He was by all accounts a legendary U.S. Marine three-star general now writing for the New York Times. I was intrigued by the thought of retired senior military officer now working as a member of the Fourth Estate. For many of us serving in the military, it seemed a bit incongruous.

At that time, our program to support the Iraqis through the provision of U.S. military intelligence was very close-hold. Few members of the government were aware of the Presidential-directed program to give the Iraqi military the information they needed to stave off an expected Iranian offensive that we believed would lead to the eventual fall of the Iraqi government.

I was one of the officers tasked with going to Baghdad and working with the Iraqi Directorate of Military Intelligence as part of that program. According to the Los Angeles Times, the program was known by the code names "Elephant Grass," "Druid Leader" and "Surf Fisher." I will neither confirm nor deny.

Imagine my surprise while on a flight from Paris to Baghdad running into General Trainor. Since the flight was headed for Baghdad, there was no sense in denying that I was headed for the Iraqi capital. I tap-danced around the obvious question, "What are you going to be doing in Baghdad?" with a "visiting our defense attache office at the embassy."

I am not sure he bought it, but extending professional courtesy from one military officer to another, he did not pursue it. I was glad he did. I did not want to lie or mislead him - but as a professional intelligence officer, I was prepared to do so.

Years later, I again worked with General Trainor, but in a different capacity - we were both on-air analysts for NBC News, which included the cable outlets CNBC and MSNBC. He was always a gracious analyst, even when we disagreed. My experiences in Iraq were markedly different, so it was reasonable that our analyses varied. In every instance, he was personable and willing to listen to a much junior officer.

I will mourn the passing of a fine officer. General Trainor - "Mick" - served his country well as a warrior, and later as a journalist and author.

Salute.

________________
* I have chosen to not acknowledge the obituary from the Times as I disagree with the political spin attached to it. I knew General Trainor and believe that he would not have not been pleased with it.

Tweet

President Trump and the Purple Heart presentation to Sergeant First Class Barrientos

CNN New Day Sunday - April 23, 2017

President Donald Trump presented the Purple Heart to U.S. Army Sergeant First Class Alvaro Barrientos at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on April 22, 2017. Sergeant Barrientos's wife Tammi was present as the President presented the medal reserved for troops wounded or killed in action.

Sergeant Barrientos was wounded in Afghanistan on March 17 - his right leg was amputated below the knee as a result of his wounds.

During the presentation, the President congratulated the soldier. Granted, it was not the best choice of words - the predictable criticism from the anti-Trump crowd began almost immediately.

I was asked for my thoughts on the needless controversy this morning on CNN. (Disclosure - I am a paid military analyst for the network.)

This should not be about President Trump - it should be about Sergeant Barrientos, and his service and sacrifice. His life has changed forever. Lest we forget, troops like the sergeant pay the cost of our freedom.

I agree that it would have been better if Mr. Trump had thanked the sergeant for his service and sacrifice instead of the awkward "congratulations," but I like the fact that the President made the presentation publicly.

In response to a question comparing President Obama's preference of presenting Purple Heart medals in private, I said that I was glad to see the President publicly acknowledging the high cost we as a country pay - the high cost that troops like Sergeant Barrientos pay - to maintain our freedom and security.

I do not want the American people to forget the fine men and women who are fighting our nation's wars, their efforts often unheralded in the cacophony of the daily news cycle focused on partisan bickering.

President Trump's public recognition was appropriate.

Tweet

The fall of Kabul - 15 years later

Kabul under Northern Alliance attack - November 2001

On November 14, 2001, the Afghan capital city of Kabul fell to the U.S.-supported Northern Alliance after a short but intense battle. The Northern Alliance was supported primarily by U.S. airpower controlled by American special operations troops and paramilitary officers of the CIA.

Fifteen years later, what have we accomplished?

Let's remember why the United States invaded Afghanistan. Following the al-Qa'idah attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, the Taliban government of Afghanistan was given the opportunity to respond to a request (actually, it was a demand) to turn over al-Qa'idah leader Usamah bin Ladin to American authorities for trial.

The Taliban, citing the tribal code known as pashtunwali, refused, claiming that bin Ladin had been granted sanctuary in Afghanistan and turning him over to a foreign power would be a violation of their honor.

In response, President George Bush authorized the invasion of Afghanistan, pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) passed by the Congress on September 14, 2001 - the President signed it into law four days later. The law authorized the President to employ the armed forces of the United States against those responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as any entity who harbored said persons or groups.

By refusing to turn over Usamah bin Ladin to the United States, the Taliban met the criteria of the authorization. On October 7, 2001, American forces began the campaign known as Operation Enduring Freedom by dropping bombs and firing cruise missiles against Taliban military and communications facilities, as well as al-Qa'idah training camps in the areas of Kabul, Kandahar, and Herat.

It was the beginning of the longest war in American history.

On November 14, the capital fell. The Taliban was forced from power, and al-Qa'idah fell back towards the Pakistan border.

In the battle of Tora Bora - December 6 to December 17 - the United States relied on local Afghan allies, including the Northern Alliance, to arrange the "modalities" of bin Ladin's capture or surrender. I remember wondering who made that fateful, ill-advised decision - you cannot outsource your fighting. There were additional American troops available, but the U.S. military commander did not commit them to the fight. Big mistake.

The result was predictable. Whether tribal loyalties came into play, or money changed hands, or some other deal was struck, Usamah bin Ladin escaped across the border into the Pashtun-controlled tribal area of Pakistan. This event should have been a warning about any long term commitment to the Afghans.

At this point, the American military mission in Afghanistan was essentially complete, only partially accomplished, but complete. Al-Qa'idah no longer had a base of training and operations in Afghanistan, but they merely changed venues. They initially moved to Pakistan - who has been virtually no help - then to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, North Africa, and even to Syria where they were the predecessor of the so-called and self-proclaimed Islamic State.

It was not until 2011 that justice was finally delivered to Usamah bin Ladin, then living in relative safety in Pakistan. Yet, for ten years preceding that raid, American forces were involved in a civil war in Afghanistan. Even after the killing of bin Ladin, American forces remain in Afghanistan. After 15 years, we have lost almost 2400 troops killed and over 20,000 wounded. Although the cost is pegged at over $700 billion, the actual costs when long-term medical and disability bills are included is much higher.

What have we accomplished in Afghanistan since the Battle of Tora Bora that justifies the blood and treasure? It depends on who you ask, but since this is my article, I'll answer.

What was the mission? Get al-Qa'idah and bin Ladin - once that was accomplished, the effort should have focused on the remnants of al-Qa'idah, not propping up the Karzai government, what most of us knew was going to a futile effort at creating a representative form of government. We are not very good at this.

So now we have been there for 15 years, and have accomplished what? The Afghan military is incapable of quelling the violence, the Taliban is on the ascent, and we insist that our "advise and assist" mission is still viable.

Solution? I guess we first need to define the goals. If it is to defeat the Taliban, say so and deploy enough troops to get it done (I am not advocating that). If it is an inclusive political settlement, get that process moving.

What we are doing now is not working.

Not much. Why not? Because have never really defined a mission beyond 2001. Why are we there? To defeat and expel al-Qa'idah from the country? That was accomplished years ago. To defeat the Taliban? The Taliban does not pose a threat to the United States.

Naysayers will counter that the Taliban will allow al-Qa'idah to return and re-establish training bases, and later mount operations against the United States and/or its allies. I think we have demonstrated that we are capable of devastating the country - again - if the Taliban is stupid enough to allow that to happen.

In simple terms, tell the Taliban - or whichever corrupt warlord eventually seizes power in arguably the most corrupt country on the planet - that if al-Qa'idah comes back to Afghanistan, so does American military power.

And we won’t be coming to nation-build….

Tweet

Ahmad Khan Rahami - the ISIS connection

A page from Rahami's blood-stained journal

In the official Department of Justice complaints filed against New York and New Jersey bomber Ahmad Khan Rahami, you will not find a connection noted between Rahami and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). It is there, nonetheless. The complaint did point to a connection between Rahami and al-Qa'idah.

First, here is the connection. Here is the text that is readable from a key page in Rahami's blood-stained journal. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of jihadi Arabic terminology will see this immediately. I have expanded it for those who do not.

Raw text:
"...back to sham. But __ this incident show the risk are ___ of getting caught under ___. ___ I looked for guidance and alhumdulilah guidance came from Sheikh Anwar & Brother Adnani of Dawla. Said it clearly attack the kuffar in their backyard."

My expansion:
"...back to Syria. But __ this incident shows the risks are ___ of getting caught under ___. ___ I looked for guidance and thank God, guidance came from Sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki and Brother Abu Muhammad al-Adnani of the Islamic State (ISIS). It said it clearly: attack the infidels in their backyard."

Anwar al-Awlaki was a longtime propagandist for al-Qa'idah. A native born American citizen, he was responsible for inspiring and directing scores of terrorist attacks, mostly aimed at the United States. These attacks included Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the "underwear bomber") and Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan. Awlaki was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Yemen in September 2011.

Abu Muhammad al-Adnani was the ISIS spokesman and its chief of external operations, responsible for a series of attacks in Europe, including the November 2015 attacks in Paris and the March 2016 bombings in Brussels. Adnani was killed in a U.S. airstrike near Aleppo on August 30, 2016.

Now, here is why I think the ISIS-Rahami connection is missing.

This Administration, and hence its Department of Justice and Department of State, does not want these attacks to be tied to ISIS. It does not fit President Obama's narrative - remember the "JV team" and the fact that he created the conditions that led to the rise of the organization that rapidly took over 30 percent of Iraq and Syria?

The fact that ISIS can inspire attacks in the United States shows the failure of the President's plan to eradicate ISIS. What the Administration does not want are constant references to ISIS while the Rahami case progresses through the justice system.

Ahmad Khan Rahami will be tried in the federal court system and if convicted, will spend the rest of his days at the United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum Facility, more commonly referred to as "the Supermax" in Florence, Colorado, in the company of many of his Islamist compatriots. If we can't send them to Guantanamo anymore, the Supermax will do.

That said, for the Administration - and the orders emanate from the White House - to ignore the ISIS connection is at best disingenuous, and at worst obstruction of justice.

Tweet

The Bergdahl court-martial recommendation - has someone leaned on the Army?

Still from a Taliban video of Bergdahl's release in 2014

From recent reports, it appears that the U.S. Army will not try accused deserter Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl in a general court martial. According to a statement from Bergdahl's civilian lawyer, the presiding officer at the Article 32 hearing will recommend to the general in charge of Bergdahl's case that the sergeant be tried by special court martial, a lower level court for what are equivalent to misdemeanors in the civilian justice system. If Bergdahl's lawyer is correct, the presiding officer will also recommend that the sergeant not be subjected to confinement or given a punitive discharge from the Army.

I wish I could say that I am surprised at the recommendations made by the Army lawyer, but given the politicization of this case by President Obama and his national security advisor, it is inevitable that Bergdahl will get special treatment. There were two major clues that this Administration has no interest in holding Bergdahl accountable for his alleged crimes.

The first was the spectacle of President Obama hosting Bergdahl's parents in a Rose Garden ceremony at which he announced the release of five of the most senior Taliban detainees in U.S. custody in exchange for the return of their son. This ill-advised deal and public ceremony has set the tone that will influence any future prosecution of the soldier.

The President's remarks seemed to paint Bergdahl as a hero rather than a soldier later accused of desertion. It is inconceivable that the President - he is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces - was unaware of the circumstances of Bergdahl's disappearance from his unit at a forward outpost in Afghanistan.

The second event was a series of appearances by National Security Advisor Susan Rice on the Sunday talk shows. Her repeated claim that Bergdahl "served the United States with honor and distinction..." again set the stage for either no or only low-level prosecution.

In March of this year, I wrote an article lauding the U.S. Army's decision to bring charges against Sergeant Bergdahl. I was pleased that despite the unwarranted influence exerted by President Obama and Ms. Rice, the Army did the right thing. The Army charged Sergeant Bergdahl with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, both very serious crimes. (See the entire article: Bergdahl - the Army does the right thing.)

Even as the Army formalized the charges against Bergdahl, Bergdahl's lawyer, Eugene Fidell, began the litany of excuses and rationale behind Bergdahl's actions. No one contests the fact that he left his unit in Afghanistan, but the fantasies that Fidell puts forth are almost laughable. Fidell is an excellent lawyer; he is doing his job.

Bergdahl claims that he wanted to call attention to what he considered the poor leadership of his unit by leaving his observation post and running almost 14 miles to a larger base in order to lodge a complaint. I suspect Fidell sensed that the Administration wants this case to go away, and crafted a narrative that would lead to lesser or even no charges. This in turn saves the President any embarrassment based on his Rose Garden theatrics.

A few weeks after I wrote the first article and I began to see Fidell's plan to create an alternate reality, I wrote a second article in which I said: "I also hope that the Administration will not put pressure on the Army to dismiss the case in the wake of the White House's two public relations blunders - the Rose Garden ceremony with the President and Bergdahl's parents, followed by National Security Advisor Susan Rice's blatantly false claim that Bergdahl 'served the United States with honor and distinction.'" (See the entire article: Bergdahl - the deflective media campaign begins.)

I still had hopes that the Army would continue to do the right thing and fully prosecute Bergdahl. Let him have his day in court - let him explain to a general court martial why he left his unit while assigned to an outpost in Afghanistan. Have Bergdahl explain the series of emails and communications with his father that may have encouraged his decision to leave his post.

Let the government put on its case, call all the witnesses who were at that same outpost and hear their recollections of what happened, not what Bergdahl's lawyer would have us believe.

Let the officers impaneled to hear the case decide if Bergdahl was justified in leaving his comrades in a combat zone. If they find him guilty of the charges, the court can take into consideration the fact that he was a prisoner of the Taliban for five years when determining an appropriate punishment. I know there are many veterans who believe Bergdahl should serve a life sentence; I believe he has suffered enough for his decision to leave his post.

That said, I still want him to stand up in a U.S. Army court martial and be held accountable for his actions. If found guilty, I believe he should be given a less than honorable discharge from the Army and if possible, enjoined from profiting from his errors in judgment - no profits from a book or movie rights, etc. I personally have no desire for him to be incarcerated, but I do not want him wearing a U.S. military uniform or enriching himself based on criminal behavior.

When I heard Fidell's announcement about the recommendations that will be made as a result of the Article 32 hearing, I was disappointed. Then it got worse - Fidell complained about the recommendation for even a special court martial, advocating instead for an even less serious Article 15 proceeding, considered in the military as nonjudicial punishment, in other words, not a formal court martial.

I was stunned - Article 15's are given for minor infractions, like missing a formation or instances of being late for work. An Article 15 is not appropriate disciplinary action for leaving a post in a combat zone.

The presiding officer also recommended that Bergdahl not be subjected to a punitive discharge, meaning that he would retain all benefits afforded veterans who have served honorably. These include access to all Veterans Administration benefits - disability pay, medical care, etc. That too flies in the face of the serious nature of the charges. If found guilty - and that now appears to be a big if - in a special court martial, Bergdahl could face one year in confinement and a bad conduct discharge.

This is not the last word. The recommendations for a special court martial and the call for no jail time or punitive discharge are just that - recommendations. The final decision will be made by General Robert Abrams, commander of U.S. Army Forces Command, the court martial convening authority. The general can accept or reject any or all of the recommendations.

It is hard to imagine that this case is being conducted without what is called in the military "undue command influence." It began the day Bergdahl was released and continues to this day. Maybe I am being naive, but I still have hopes the Army will do the right thing - convene a general court martial and give this case the gravity it deserves.

______________
Bonus: My CNN interview on this issue (with Poppy Harlow, October 10)

A possible setback for the Army in its quest to put Sgt. Bowe #Bergdahl behind bars @MiddleEastGuy & @PoppyHarlowCNN http://t.co/AMxXXXRcha

— Jennifer Henderson (@JenHenCNN) October 10, 2015

Tweet

Médecins Sans Frontières accuses the U.S. Air Force of a war crime - ludicrous

The fact that I have to write this disgusts me. I just finished an interview on CNN (in my role as a paid military analyst) to discuss the latest accusations from the international medical relief organization Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), known in English as "Doctors without Borders."

I have great respect for MSF - they are usually found in areas where other medical personnel will not go, mostly in areas underserved by their own governments or areas ravaged by war. In almost all cases, doctors and nurses serving in these areas do so at great personal risk.

Kunduz, Afghanistan fits the description exactly, being both underserved by the Afghan government and the scene of an ongoing battle between the Taliban and Afghan forces. Kunduz recently fell to the Taliban, the first major city to fall to the group since 2001. The Afghan forces attempting to retake the city were supported by U.S. special operations forces on the ground and U.S. Air Force fighters and gunships in the sky.

The MSF-operated hospital in Kunduz - easily the best medical facility in the area - was severely damaged by what MSF claims was "aerial bombardment" during the fighting in the dark, early hours of Saturday. As a result, 22 people were killed, including MSF staff and patients.

Obviously, this is a tragedy - but to immediately label this as a war crime perpetrated by the U.S. Air Force is contemptible.

Let's look at the statement issued by Christopher Stokes, MSF’s general director: "Under the clear presumption that a war crime has been committed, MSF demands that a full and transparent investigation into the event be conducted by an independent international body. There can be no justification for this abhorrent attack on our hospital."

Mr. Stokes went on to claim that the hospital’s main building was "hit with precision" for more than an hour, even after it alerted American and Afghan military officials. They claim - and I have no reason to doubt it - that the organization provided the GPS coordinates of the hospital to Afghan and American authorities. Unfortunately, providing locational data does not immunize facilities from being caught in crossfires.

No doubt Mr. Stokes is angry and upset about the incident at the hospital - we all regret any loss of innocent lives. That said, the director general needs to carefully consider his choice of words. Accusing the U.S. Air Force of a war crime with no facts to back it up is beyond the pale.

First of all, Mr. Stokes has no way of knowing what caused the damage to the hospital. While the current thinking is that an American AC-130 gunship was responsible for the mistaken attack, it may turn out that the damage was caused by errant mortar or rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) rounds fired by the Taliban, both in use that night near the hospital compound.

Beyond that, the words "under the clear presumption that a war crime has been committed" is accusing the U.S. Air Force of intentionally firing on a hospital. I find that insulting and unnecessarily inflammatory. Stokes doesn't know what happened - that is why there are multiple investigations into this incident.

Does Mr. Stokes have any harsh words for the Taliban, whose attacks on Kunduz precipitated the entire confrontation? Any demands for investigations into war crimes committed by these Islamist thugs? According to the Afghan police commander on scene in Kunduz, Taliban fighters were using the hospital compound for cover - a charge vehemently denied by Mr. Stokes.

As a retired U.S. Air Force officer, I know that this tragedy was not an intentional attack on a medical facility - that is not who we are, not what we do. If Mr. Stokes believes that, perhaps he needs to find another line of work where flights of fiction and fantasy are part of the job description.

Tweet

Bergdahl - the deflective media campaign begins

Still images from a Taliban video of Bergdahl's release

It has not taken any time at all for a campaign to be mounted in support of accused U.S. Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl. It ranges from sympathetic media outlets to his high-powered defense attorney and even a few misguided online support groups.

The motivations for the campaign range from typical lawyer tactics to anti-military sentiments, usually from people who do not understand military service and its unique demands.

Bergdahl at Fort Sam Houston (San Antonio, TX) in 2014

My views on Bergdahl are clear (see my earlier article, Bergdahl - the Army does the right thing). I believe he deserted his post and should be held accountable - let him have his day in court. It appears that he is one step closer to that possibility as the U.S. Army has charged him with desertion and misbehavior in front of the enemy - both serious charges.

There is an Article 32 hearing scheduled for April 22. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, this hearing is similar to a civilian grand jury proceeding. The convening officer may refer the case to a general court-martial or dismiss the charges. I hope that the U.S. Army will continue to do the right thing as a result of that hearing, which in my opinion is to convene a general court-martial.

I also hope that the Administration will not put pressure on the Army to dismiss the case in the wake of the White House's two public relations blunders - the Rose Garden ceremony with the President and Bergdahl's parents, followed by National Security Advisor Susan Rice's blatantly false claim that Bergdahl "served the United States with honor and distinction."

On CNN* this morning, I was asked my analysis of the claim made by Bergdahl that he had left his unit so he could report "a breakdown in discipline and order" to senior military officials and did not intend to desert. I wanted to ask CNN anchor Alison Kosik, "Where do I start?"

I enjoy fiction but it has to be good fiction - this does not meet that standard. I have to assume that this claim is part of the legal advice that Bergdahl is receiving from well-known civilian defense attorney Eugene Fidell.

Fidell is well-regarded in military justice circles, and he will do his best to defend his client - I hope that stops short of suborning perjury. His claims that there is a "tidal wave of hostility from the right" toward Bergdahl is just more of his part of the media campaign drumbeat....

First, there is an established chain of command that provides for soldiers to raise the issues Bergdahl claims he was attempting to report. That is best done at an installation to which Bergdahl had access periodically, not by deserting a forward outpost in the middle of the night in search of another unit.

Second, if he was truly looking for another U.S. Army outpost, he would have retained his body armor, night-vision googles and most importantly, his weapons. It is inconceivable to me that he chose to leave his post unarmed in the middle of an area known to be active with Taliban fighters on this mythical quest to report problems in his unit.

We can expect more of the deflection campaign. However, I am not buying it.
_______________
* Disclosure: I am a paid military analyst for CNN.

Tweet