Karzai Has A Point

Now there's thought I never thought I'd have!  After listening to the stories on the news at noon about the numbers of children being tortured, yes, tortured, and killed in Syria, it brought to mind Karzai and his demands.

Once again Karzai has taken coalition forces to task for attacks on civilian enclaves.  It seems to be a weekly occurrence.  He complains so often I have to think there is something to it.  We attack and kill a targeted terrorist. Hopefully. Unfortunately the strike usually includes women and children.  Karzai complains.  We apologize.  And do it all over again.  What a way to fight a war.

I've been of the mind that war is war and there will be civilian casualties.  It's the nature of the beast.  But break down the word civilian and the whole scenario changes.  Women and children, non combatant men, the elderly.  The latest, last week, was 18. Many women.  Many children.

I don't like Mr. Karzai.  I don't believe he's an honest partner in our war against Islamic extremists and he's greedy.  On the other hand, he's tired of seeing innocent people, his people, slaughtered in the quest for often just a single individual.  So he wants all bombing of Afghan cities, towns and villages banned.  Even if coalition forces are under attack.  I see where he's coming from.  When they are shooting at us, we're all the enemy.  When we shoot at them, only scant intelligence tells us at whom we're shooting.  Sometimes the targeted person is present and sometimes not but people always get killed and it's obviously not necessarily the target.

Another argument for capturing the enemy rather than merely blowing them away.  Intelligence.  Of course a boots on the ground shooting war puts our troops in harms way and is far more difficult than using drones and other means of air attack.  It would be a good time to re-evaluate the war wouldn't it?  Are our troops and their women and children, any of their civilians, worth the end?  What is the end?  As of now it won't be victory, merely withdrawal.  If I had the money to bet, I'd bet the Taliban and al Qaeda will be out in full force before our dust has settled.

From Where Have All the Flowers Gone there's a telling verse.  "Where have all the soldiers gone?  Gone to graveyards, every one."  That's bad enough.  At least spare the children!  But then in war civilians get killed.  And that is another of the myriad of reasons I hate war.

We've Got It All Wrong!

Actually both sides have it wrong when it comes to buying information.  Yesterday I wrote about the bounties being offered for information regarding the where abouts of certain al Qaeda leaders.  Not to be out done, the Somalians have come up with their own offer for information regarding the where abouts of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton!

Ten million?  Fifty million?  No way.  Far more practical. Ten camels for Obama and twenty chickens for Clinton.  Ten hens and ten roosters, or cocks as they say.

 Does that make Hillary the better value?  I would certainly think so if you either wanted to raise chickens or produce eggs.  Unless of course, those ten camels include both male and female.  I don't know, though, how much of a market there is for camel off spring and as far as I know they don't produce a saleable product unless you consider their hair for pricey coats.  They are good pack animals and Obama is accumulating quite a bit of baggage, but then he isn't the one receiving the offer.

It seems to me if either side of this perpetual conflict knew what they were doing, the rewards would be reversed.  Thirty three million for information on top al Qaeda leaders.  Most who would have that information probably wouldn't have a clue what to do with that kind of money.  The only ones really good at handling that scope of financial windfall are the leaders themselves who use it for their own bribes.  Like exile in friendly countries should push come to shove.

Now in this country it's a different story.  We all dream of riches.  Just look at the amounts spent in casinos or on lottery jackpots just on a chance.  Know where Obama is going to be campaigning?  Done deal!  With a lump sum payment to boot!

As for the information we're seeking, we'd probably get a lot more takers if we were the ones offering the camels and the chickens.  Something any good villager could use;  food for sure, maybe even a dowry if they have such a thing.  Certainly a way to get their goods to market since most don't have cars or pick ups.

So there you go.  Those who say our leaders don't get it are absolutely right.  It's an eye opener though, to find our adversaries don't get it either.  Camels for Obama.  Come on.  Camels in any ones back yard would be sure to draw the attention of the eye in the sky drones.  Try as you might, you just can't make them look like cattle!

Money May Talk But We Don't Want To Listen

I'm reading that we've put a bounty on 7  Somali terrorists.  I didn't realize we even had a State Department 'Rewards for Justice' program.  I suppose it makes sense though considering we buy allegiance and everything else in our war on terror.  Goes to show the dollar doesn't go very far doesn't it?

This program is offering $7 million for information on the location of one man.  Five million for information on four others.  Another $3 million for additional leaders.  Some awards go as high as $25 million.  Wow. You'd think there would be a lot of squeal in that pig!  To date more than $100 million has been paid out to some 70 informants. I wonder who decides the $ value of a terrorist or if they merely shuffle a deck of cards.  A seven comes up.  Okay, $7 mil.

I can't help but wonder if the Pakistani doctor who helped us pin down bin Laden before we killed him and is now rotting in a Pakistani prison for his efforts had his eye on retiring in luxury.  Oops.

I also can't help but wonder if we'd need a system such as this if we hadn't gutted our intelligence community.  $100 million would pay a heck of a lot of salaries.

I also wonder why, when we get this information, we go after the terrorists with drones rather than making the effort to capture them. Oh, I know, it's easier.   Somehow it makes sense to me that capturing one might lead to the capture of others and an accumulation of vital intelligence along with it.

It seems at odds to say enhanced interrogation is un-American while killing people in cold blood isn't.  Somehow I see our entire war strategy as skewed. We pay who for this information?  What do we know about them?  Are they allies to our ends or traitors to their own?  Both or neither or either/or?

On the flip side of the coin we turn a deaf ear to pleas from the Syrians to help level their field in the war against their resident monster because their identity isn't clear.  That's really lame.  Think how far  $100 million would go there too.  Especially since we already know where the enemy is!

More Than A Card Game

I'm beginning to wonder just exactly who is the real Barack Obama.  The empty suit on which we imagined all sorts of wondrous things,  the protocol impaired apologist who traveled the world, the aloof naive loner or a cold blooded politician lusting after the means to hold onto power.

None of the choices thrill me but most bothersome are the means being taken to achieve the latter.

An area in which Obama has always been weak is foreign policy.  You've no doubt read about how he's trying to enhance his credentials.  His taking credit for the SEAL attack on bin Laden, the security leaks happening now that have even his own party in an uproar and the drone attacks.  He is accused of doing these things for political advantage.

Let's look at the leak about the cyber attacks in Iran where he has also linked the Israelis and one of our own national labs.  It happens to be here in Idaho.  You know Idaho, often confused with Iowa or Indiana.  We've had our share of notoriety thanks to the once plentiful neo-Nazi movement that took up residence in a town neighboring mine.  They're gone now, at least underground, yet it is the one thing most people remember when you say you live in Idaho.  I wonder if the extremists have taken note and wonder if they can recruit some kindred spirits here.  I really do wonder.  I much preferred being Iowa.  Anyway, there is the prospect of unintended consequences.

Now, too, allies are thinking we can no longer be trusted in joint covert activity.  Good thought if they're going to be outed whenever a politician needs some creds!

He also seems quite high on drone attacks.  Forget our cattle.  This is really serious business. Obama has 'evolved' from thinking the terrorists should be tried in our courts with all our rights to picking a victim from a deck of cards and taking him  out along with all who may be in the path.

There is a certain detachment that comes with using drones.  Those who operate them are thousands of miles away as is the face in a deck of cards.  But the power.  The invincibility must be like an opiate.   Why else would he order deaths rather than capture for information?  We know where they are either way.

It's chilling.  There are no stories reaching me telling of how he agonizes over the decision of who and when.  Just do it. That's cold.  Detached.  Void of emotion and I wonder, reason?

This man who hadn't even warmed up to the White House before he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  What were they thinking?  What are we thinking?  Does he even think?

Carrying Security Efficiency Too Far

I rarely carry a topic over to a second post but after writing yesterday's about the lack of privacy due to over zealous camera surveillance, I had to chuckle about the TSA firing five and suspending scores more for not properly screening passengers in a Florida airport.

Supplemental screenings were not performed on 300 to 400 passengers during a time in 2011.  It makes me wonder if those passengers got through and nothing happened on any of their flights if we're not being told something no matter how subtle.  All the screening isn't necessary!  Just multiply it out to all the airports and how many more passengers may have been spared the hassle if other agents, too, had been lax.
 
On the other hand, maybe the wrong people are being screened!  Forget sending the drones to focus on the sanitary habits of cattle, just focus the cameras on the TSA workers!  Okay, the diatribe on the cattle was meant to be tongue in cheek playing on the mental image of cows being spied upon.

The TSA worker issue is another matter.  Quite often there are tidbits in the news about people having items stolen from their checked luggage, but when your carry on luggage completely disappears while you are being scanned it's quite another.

A writer for The Financial Times lost her luggage between the time she put it on the belt at JFK and the time she exited the body scanner. A search of the area turned up nothing except the irritation level of security personnel.  Certainly the cameras would show what happened to it.  But no.  Cameras are only placed where they can see you place your luggage on the belt.  There are none on the other side of the x-ray machine so if you're off being scanned it can disappear without a second glance. The article didn't say, but I'd like to know if this is the case because it's less expensive and more efficient to have only one camera?

It also made me laugh because this is a government entity that is proving to be extremely expensive considering the return on our money.  More passengers have been robbed by TSA employees than terrorists caught.

I'd suggest sticking with the drones and the cattle but what if some errant drone operator decided to take out a poor cow because it was defecating too close to a water source?  Of course they are highly trained and professional at what they do, but cattle aren't like people.  They can be herded, but they are not sheep!