Wednesday, May 25, 2011

U.S. To Develop Carrier-Based Drones To Counter Chinese Missiles

From ROK Drop:
Via Terry

By GI Korea on May 17th, 2011 at 3:12 am

US To Develop Drone Based Carriers To Counter Chinese Missiles

» by GI Korea in: U.S. Navy

It looks like we could be seeing a drone only carrier in the near future to overcome China’s anti-carrier missile advantage:

» by GI Korea in: U.S. Navy

It looks like we could be seeing a drone only carrier in the near future to overcome China’s anti-carrier missile advantage:


The U.S. is developing aircraft carrier-based drones that could provide a crucial edge as it tries to counter China’s military rise.

American officials have been tightlipped about where the unmanned armed planes might be used, but a top Navy officer has told The Associated Press that some would likely be deployed in Asia.

“They will play an integral role in our future operations in this region,” predicted Vice Adm. Scott Van Buskirk, commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet, which covers most of the Pacific and Indian oceans. [Associated Press]

This concept has actually been discussed for a few years now and Tom Ricks has even recommended calling any drone based carrier the USS Obama.

Source and comments at:

And this, related, from
Northrop Grumman X-47 Pegasus

In June 2000, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) awarded the first study contracts for a carrier-based unmanned combat aircraft - labeled UCAV-N (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle - Naval) - to Northrop Grumman and Boeing. At that time, Northrop Grumman was already privately developing its Pegasus UCAV demonstrator, which was completed in July 2001. In June, it had received the official military designation X-47A (Boeing's UCAV-N was designated as X-46A). The X-47A was extensively tested on the ground during 2001 and 2002 (including taxiing), and the first flight finally occurred on 23 February 2003.


The X-47A was a stealth design with no vertical control surfaces, yaw control being achieved by differential movements of surfaces in the wings. The all-composite airframe was powered by a single Pratt & Whitney JT15D turbofan. The vehicle's computer-based control system performed flight control, navigation, mission control and other tasks. The Pegasus was equipped with a U.S. Navy Shipboard Relative GPS navigation system, which would have been necessary for automatic pin-point landings on a moving aircraft carrier deck. On its first flight, the X-47A tested that system by making an exact landing on a pre-designated spot on the runway.


As it turned out, the first flight of the X-47A remained the only one so far. In April 2003, DARPA combined the UCAV-N program with the on-going USAF/DARPA UCAV program into the joint DARPA/USAF/Navy J-UCAV program, later renamed J-UCAS (Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems). Northrop Grumman apparently decided that further flight tests of the X-47A would not help the development of its forthcoming J-UCAS demonstrator, designated X-47B.

The airframe of the X-47B has not much in common with that of the X-47A. It is significantly larger, has a more powerful P&W F100 turbofan engine, and redesigned outer wing sections and intake/exhaust configurations. The wing extensions provide for longer range and better low-speed characteristics, and are foldable to reduce parking space on the aircraft carrier. The payload capacity for J-UCAS was to be 2040 kg (4500 lb), representing two GBU-31/B JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) GPS/INS-guided bombs. Northrop Grumman was under contract to build two (originally three) X-47Bs, and flight testing, together with the rival Boeing X-45C, was expected to begin in 2007.


The J-UCAS development effort was defined in terms of "spirals". The X-45A UCAV demonstrator was "Spiral 0", while the X-45C and X-47B represented "Spiral 1". Later spirals were to further enhance the mission capabilities of the system by integrating more sensor and weapon options. The ultimate goal had been labeled J-UOS (J-UCAS Objective System) by DARPA.

In early January 2006, the J-UCAS program was cancelled in favor of separate follow-on programs by the USAF and U.S. Navy, and - in case of the Air Force - the development of new manned long-range bomber aircraft. The Navy has since effectively taken over the J-UCAS program under a new label (first N-UCAS, then UCAS-D (Demonstrator)), and parallel development of the X-47B and X-45C vehicles as carrier-based UCAVs continued until mid-2007. In August 2007, the Navy announced the X-47B as the winner of the UCAS-D competition. Primary goal of the six-year X-47B development and evaluation program is the demonstration of launches and recoveries on an aircraft carrier at sea. The completed X-47B was officially unveiled in December 2008, and the first flight of the vehicle is scheduled for late 2009.


Note: Data given by several sources show slight variations. Figures given below may therefore be inaccurate!

Data for X-47A/B:

X-47A X-47B

Length 8.50 m (27.9 ft) 11.6 m (38.2 ft)

Wingspan 8.47 m (27.8 ft) 18.9 m (62.1 ft)

Weight (gross) 2500 kg (5500 lb) 19000 kg (42000 lb)

Speed Subsonic High subsonic

Ceiling ? > 12200 m (40000 ft)

Range ? 6500 km (3500 nm)

Propulsion Pratt & Whitney JT15D-5C turbofan; 14.2 kN (3190 lb) Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220U turbofan; 71.2 kN (16000 lb)

Main Sources

[1] DARPA J-UCAS Website

[2] Air Force Technology Website

Back to Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Appendix 4

And this, related, from Northrop Grumman:


Program Overview:

X-47B UCASThe X-47B is a tailless, strike fighter-sized unmanned system currently under development by Northrop Grumman as part of the U.S. Navy’s Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration (UCAS-D) program. Under a contract awarded in 2007, the company has designed, developed and is currently producing two X-47B aircraft. In the 2013 timeframe, these aircraft will be used to demonstrate the first carrier-based launches and recoveries by an autonomous, low-observable relevant unmanned aircraft. The UCAS-D program will also be used to mature relevant carrier landing and integration technologies, and to demonstrate autonomous aerial refueling by the X-47B aircraft.

Foundation for the Future:

UCAS-D is designed to help the U.S. Navy explore the future of unmanned carrier aviation. A successful UCAS-D flight test program, including a series of successful carrier-based launches and recoveries, will help set the stage for the development of a more permanent, carrier-based fleet of unmanned aircraft.

And this, related, also from Northrop Grumman:

Northrop Grumman-built U.S. Navy X-47B Unmanned Combat Aircraft Completes Historic First Flight

First-of-its-Kind, Tailless Aircraft Moves Closer to Carrier Trials in 2013

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif., Feb. 4, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Today, the Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC)-built U.S. Navy X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration (UCAS-D) aircraft successfully completed its historic first flight at Edwards Air Force Base (AFB), Calif.

Conducted by a U.S. Navy/Northrop Grumman test team, the flight took off at 2:09 p.m. PST and lasted 29 minutes. This event marks a critical step in the program, moving the team forward to meet the demonstration objectives of a tailless fighter-sized unmanned aircraft to safely take off from and land on the deck of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier.

A social media version of this release that includes photos, video clips, and additional quotes and background material, is available at

"First flight represents the compilation of numerous tests to validate the airworthiness of the aircraft, and the robustness and reliability of the software that allows it to operate as an autonomous system and eventually have the ability to take-off and land aboard an aircraft carrier," said Capt. Jaime Engdahl, the Navy's UCAS-D program manager.

Northrop Grumman is the Navy's UCAS-D prime contractor and leader of the UCAS-D industry team.

"Designing a tailless, fighter-sized unmanned aircraft from a clean sheet is no small feat," said Janis Pamiljans, vice president and UCAS-D program manager for Northrop Grumman's Aerospace Systems sector. "Commitment, collaboration and uncompromising technical excellence among the Navy, Northrop Grumman and the UCAS-D team industry partners made today's flight a reality. We are indeed honored to have given wings to the Navy's vision for exploring unmanned carrier aviation."

Taking off under hazy skies, the X-47B climbed to an altitude of 5,000 feet, flew several racetrack-type patterns, and landed safely at 2:38 p.m. PST. The flight provided test data to verify and validate system software for guidance and navigation, and the aerodynamic control of the tailless design.

As with all test programs, first flight represents the culmination, verification and certification of pre-flight system data collected and analyzed by both the Navy and Northrop Grumman. Airframe proof load tests, propulsion system accelerated mission tests, software maturity and reliability simulations, full system taxi tests, and numerous other system test activities were all completed and certified prior to first flight.

The aircraft will remain at Edwards AFB for flight envelope expansion before transitioning to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., later this year. There, the system will undergo additional tests to validate its readiness to begin testing in the maritime and carrier environment. The UCAS-D program is preparing the X-47B for carrier trials in 2013.

The Navy awarded the UCAS-D prime contract to Northrop Grumman in August 2007. The six-year contract calls for the development of two X-47B fighter-sized aircraft. The program will demonstrate the first-ever carrier launches and recoveries by an autonomous, unmanned aircraft with a low-observable-relevant planform. Autonomous aerial refueling will also be performed after carrier integration and at-sea trials.

Northrop Grumman's industry team includes GKN Aerospace, Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, Eaton, GE, Hamilton Sundstrand, Dell, Honeywell, Goodrich, Moog, Wind River, Parker Aerospace and Rockwell Collins.

Northrop Grumman Corporation is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide. Please visit for more information.

CONTACT: Brooks McKinney, APR

Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems

(310) 331-6610 office

(310) 864-3785 mobile

Cyndi Wegerbauer

Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems

(858) 618-5323 office

(858) 705-3280 mobile

And this, also related, also from Northrop Grumman:

Photo Release -- Northrop Grumman, U.S. Navy Complete Second, Third Flights of X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System

Flights Begin Expansion of Tests to Prove Aircraft's Performance, Handling Characteristics


EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif., March 17, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Less than a month after completing the first flight of the U.S. Navy's X-47B UCAS-Demonstration aircraft, flight test engineers from Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) and the Navy have successfully completed the aircraft's second and third flights.

A photo accompanying this release is available at

The flights, both conducted at Edwards Air Force Base, mark the beginning of a process called envelope expansion during which the test team will begin proving that the tailless aircraft can perform safely over a broad range of altitudes, air speeds and operating weights.

During the X-47B's 39-minute second flight on March 1, the aircraft flew to an altitude of 7,500 feet at speeds up to 200 knots. During its 41-minute third flight on March 4, the aircraft reached an altitude of 7,500 feet and a top speed of 180 knots. By comparison, the X-47B flew only to 5,000 feet at a top speed of 180 knots during its first flight Feb 4.

"Conducting two flights of a brand new type of aircraft within one week, and both within a month of first flight speaks not only to the robust design of the X-47B aircraft, but also to the dedication and engineering skills of the joint UCAS-D flight test team," said Janis Pamiljans, vice president for the Navy UCAS program for Northrop Grumman's Aerospace Systems sector. "These flights continue to add momentum to the team's march toward demonstrating in 2013 that we can safely operate this tailless, low-observable-relevant air system on a Navy aircraft carrier."

According to Phil Saunders, chief engineer for Northrop Grumman's Navy UCAS program, envelope expansion is designed to fully characterize the aircraft's flying qualities and prove that they match the system's performance requirements and the test team's predictions.

"Over the next few flights, we'll continue to expand the envelope in terms of air speed, altitude and operating weight range," he said. "By gradually ramping up the complexity of requirements, we will systematically prove that this air system can safely take off, fly and land in all anticipated flight environments."

Northrop Grumman and the Navy expect to complete the planned 49-flight envelope expansion program at Edwards Air Force Base before moving the first X-47B to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., later this year, he added.

One of the most important measures of performance, Saunders explains, is aircraft stability. The X-47B, which relies on high-speed computers to manage its flight control surfaces, must be able to adjust quickly and automatically to unpredictable environmental conditions such as air turbulence or cross winds. The recent test flights included a series of maneuvers designed to measure the aircraft's ability to maintain a smooth, level flying state in the presence of such conditions.

The flight tests also confirmed that the X-47B's flush mounted air data system – a nod to its low-observable-relevant design – is accurately sensing and communicating the aircraft's air speed, a critical factor in takeoff and landing.

In addition, the flight tests gave the team the opportunity to validate the aircraft's engine performance; its command and control system, and its ability to fly at a constant angle of attack and a constant rate of descent while on final approach to landing, simulating what it will have to do to make successful landing on an aircraft carrier.

The Navy awarded the UCAS-D prime contract to Northrop Grumman in August 2007. The six-year contract calls for the development of two X-47B fighter-sized aircraft. The program will demonstrate the first-ever carrier launches and recoveries by a tailless, unmanned aircraft. Autonomous aerial refueling will also be performed after carrier integration and at-sea trials.

Northrop Grumman's UCAS-D industry team includes GKN Aerospace, Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, Eaton, GE, Hamilton Sundstrand, Dell, Honeywell, Goodrich, Moog, Wind River, Parker Aerospace and Rockwell Collins.

Northrop Grumman is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide. Please visit for more information.

CONTACT: Brooks McKinney, APR

Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems

(310) 331-6610 office

(310) 864-3785 mobile

NAVAIR Public Affairs

Douglas Abbotts

(301) 757-8690 office

Pentagon Says U.S. Reducing Troop Total In Pakistan

From the AP and Yahoo News:

Pentagon says US reducing troop total in Pakistan

– Wed May 25, 6:58 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The U.S. is reducing the number of its military personnel in Pakistan at that country's request following the killing of Osama bin Laden, according to the Pentagon.

A Pentagon spokesman, Marine Col. David Lapan, said Wednesday that there are more than 200 U.S. military personnel in Pakistan, but he provided no details on how many had been withdrawn since Pakistan made its request.

"We were recently (within past two weeks) notified in writing that the government of Pakistan wished for the U.S. to reduce its footprint in Pakistan," Lapan said. "Accordingly, we have begun those reductions."

Lapan later said the personnel who have been pulled out were troops who had been training Pakistani forces in counterinsurgency skills. He did not say whether Pakistan had set a specific new limit on the U.S. numbers.

The U.S. also has military personnel assigned to the Office of the Defense Representative-Pakistan, based in Islamabad. Lapan said the total exceeds 200, but he was not more specific. He said that it has fluctuated between 200 and 300 over time, depending on the training program being executed.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Congress Considers Endless War, Worldwide

From The New American and Lew

Congress Considers Endless War, Worldwide



Written by Alex Newman

Monday, 16 May 2011 17:23


A controversial provision in the National Defense Authorization Bill that would “affirm” the President’s supposed power to wage perpetual war anywhere on Earth against undefined enemies — including Americans in the United States — is attracting fierce criticism from across the political spectrum.

The language was inserted into the bill by Rep. Howard McKeon (R-Calif.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who unveiled it last week. President Obama never even requested the sweeping powers. In fact, the administration believes it already has all the authority it needs to wage the terror war.

But a coalition of advocates is now furiously attempting to downplay the measure’s significance, claiming it simply re-affirms the executive branch’s power to carry on the “War on Terror” for as long as there might be “terror” in the world. From the Washington Post to the Wall Street Journal, establishment media outlets are painting the proposed language as a harmless statement acknowledging that the terror war is legal.

But the reality is that the provision in question is extremely dangerous, according to critics. And it is also very different from past authorizations to use military force.

The provision would, for example, purport to give the President unchecked power — maybe even the duty — to attack unspecified countries, organizations, and people no matter where in the world they might be located. All with no limitations whatsoever. It purports to cede “the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force” to the executive branch in its never-ending battle against unnamed countries, organizations, and people.

The military could even be used to go after Americans in America. And the targets would not even have to represent a national security risk to the United States — real or otherwise — based on the language in the bill. So-called “belligerents,” Americans included, could be detained without trial until the end of hostilities. And that “end” may never come. Even “substantially supporting” somebody or some group the government deemed an enemy could get a person jailed indefinitely with no charges.

Of course, opposition to the provision is growing rapidly. A coalition of almost two dozen groups — human-rights, anti-war, Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and other organizations — recently sent a strongly worded letter to the Armed Services Committee urging it to stop the proposal.

“This monumental legislation — with a large-scale and practically irrevocable delegation of war power from Congress to the President — could commit the United States to a worldwide war without clear enemies, without any geographical boundaries,” noted the letter, pointing out that it would permit the use of military force within America. There would be no boundaries related to time or objectives to be accomplished.

“At minimum, Congress should hold hearings and follow regular order before even considering such sweeping legislation,” the organizations wrote. “The proposed new Declaration of War would be without precedent in the scope of war authority or duties transferred by Congress to the President.… If Congress broadly turns over to the President the power that Article I of the Constitution provides to Congress to declare war, it very likely will never get the power back.”

Citing a recent report from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, the letter also notes that if the provision were interpreted as a Declaration of War, which appears likely, there are even broader implications. A few of those listed include administration exemptions from various federal laws such as budget limits, and broad government controls over private business and natural resources.

“Of all of the powers that Article I of the Constitution assigns to Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the power ‘to declare War,’” the letter concludes. “We urge you to use this power carefully, and to oppose this wholesale turnover of war power, without any checks — and without even holding a single hearing.”

The American Civil Liberties Union complained that the provision would create a state of war “everywhere and anywhere.” Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First’s Law and Security Program ridiculed Republican “deficit hawks” for complaining about spending while “declaring an unlimited war on all unnamed enemies of the United States of the president’s choosing.” And the list of organizations opposing the measure is still expanding.

Some legislators are sounding the alarm, too. "By declaring a global war against nameless individuals, organizations and nations 'associated' with the Taliban and al Qaeda, as well as those playing a supporting role in their efforts, [the provision] would appear to grant the president near unfettered authority to initiate military action around the world without further congressional approval," several dozen House members wrote in a letter to Rep. McKeon. "Such authority must not be ceded to the president without careful deliberation from Congress."

Milder provisions authorizing the use of force (with specific targets, objectives, and other important limitations) were cited by the Bush and Obama administrations as justification for detaining suspects indefinitely without charges, dropping bombs around the world using drones, and countless other controversial activities somehow tied to the terror war. But the new language would replace the previous authorization passed after the attacks of September 11.

That provision authorized strikes against people or groups believed to be responsible for the 9/11 attack. The new language lists as targets al-Qaeda — which ironically the U.S. government is arming in Libya in an effort to overthrow its former terror-war ally, perhaps unwittingly making itself a target of the proposed provision — the Taliban, “associated forces,” and their supporters.

Could WikiLeaks be deemed a “supporter” for releasing information about U.S. government war crimes? Could the American military swoop into England and detain WikiLeaks' leader, Julian Assange, indefinitely? What about journalists who object to the bombings of innocent civilians? Would that be considered “supporting” the enemy? The language of the bill is so broad and vague that it could essentially be used to justify anything, according to opponents.

Of course, the administration has already made clear that it will defy Congress if it disagrees with the law. On everything from the war in Libya to a law de-funding some of Obama’s “czars,” the executive branch has defiantly said it will simply ignore the legislative branch whenever it sees fit. But critics of the bill still worry that codifying into law infinite worldwide war against unknown targets is a dangerous proposition that must be stopped.

Since it is a part of the Defense Authorization Act, considered by most lawmakers to be a “must-pass” bill, the chances of McKeon’s endless terror-war provision succeeding are thought to be very high. And although Obama — following in the footsteps of George W. Bush — already behaves as if he had the authority, ceding Congress’ power over war to the executive branch may be a difficult mistake to reverse. Whether the legislative branch is even allowed to surrender its Article 1, Section 8 powers is another question entirely

Editorials In Urdu Dailies Examine Pakistan's Difficult Situation In The Wake Of Osama Bin Laden's Killing In Abbottobad


May 17, 2011 Special Dispatch No.3845

Editorials in Urdu Dailies Examine Pakistan's Difficult Situation in the Wake of Osama Bin Laden's Killing in Abbottabad

Following the killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad, a number of Urdu-language Pakistani newspapers wrote editorials commenting on the new situation confronting Pakistan and expressing concern that a similar unilateral action could also be carried out against the Pakistani nuclear facilities.

The editorials also noted that Pakistan's earlier assertions that Al-Qaeda leaders are not hiding in Pakistan will now be rejected internationally. Some of these newspapers also argued that Pakistan's role in the future of Afghanistan could be diminished as a result of Osama bin Laden's presence and killing in Pakistan, while neighboring countries like India could exploit the situation for their own purposes.

Below are editorials from three Urdu-language Pakistani dailies. Roznama Jasarat is a newspaper that belongs to the Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan. Roznama Islam is a pro-Taliban newspaper, and Roznama Ummat is also a right-wing daily. The three newspapers articulate the Pakistani national interest, though Roznama Jasarat is unlikely to support Pakistani army's role in politics.

"The Operation Against Osama bin Laden... Clearly Shows that the U.S. Marines can Attack Any Area, At Any Time, on Their Own"

Following are excerpts from the Roznama Jasarat editorial:[1]

Criticizing the Pakistani military and civilian leaders for their lack of awareness of the U.S. operation in Abbottabad, the Urdu-language daily Roznama Jasarat wrote an editorial titled "Osama's Killing, Pakistan's Unawareness," stating:

"Osama bin Laden, the symbol of fear for the U.S. for a long time, has been killed. The killing took place at Bilal Town in Abbottabad, but its information was released by U.S. President Barack Obama, and all of the U.S. is celebrating this victory. It can be termed as the success of Obama and it has also been termed as 'a great success' by Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. But whose success?!

"According to the reports, it was a U.S. military operation, of which the Pakistani military and [intelligence] agencies were kept unaware. The U.S. marines entered this sensitive [i.e. military] area by helicopters at midnight between Sunday and Monday [May 1 and 2] and attacked the building in which Osama was hiding with his wife and children. Although Bilal Town is a residential area, it is situated hardly about 1.5 kilometers away from the Kakul Military Academy. There are many military installations in Abbottabad besides the headquarters of the Frontier Force regiment. It is astonishing that Osama was residing at a big compound in this area for three years without the knowledge of Pakistani intelligence agencies. Only a few days ago Pakistani Army chief General [Ashfaq Pervez] Kayani had visited Kakul Academy and the area must have been searched thoroughly but this building remained unnoticed.

"The operation against Osama bin Laden and his associates was carried out hundred percent by the U.S. Marines, and this is a big question mark on Pakistan's security. This clearly shows that the U.S. Marines can attack any area, at any time, on their own and can safely get back as well. Abbottabad is no tribal area. The U.S. administration and military did not take anyone into confidence from Pakistan. After the completion of the operation President Obama informed Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari about his success. In Pakistan, the military, the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence], the civil administration, all were sleeping."

"If Such an Operation is Carried Out against Pakistani Nuclear Installations, Then What would the People Responsible for [Pakistan's] Defense Do?"

"If such an operation is carried out against Pakistani nuclear installations, then what would the people responsible for [Pakistan's] defense do? The Pakistani Prime Minister [Yousuf Raza Gilani] says that he had no information, and ISPR [Inter-Services Public Relations], which is the public relations institution of the military, has not released any clarification [for several days after the Abbottabad operation]. The Foreign Office spokesperson has said that Pakistan had no role in it. This ignorance is not distressing but disgraceful.

"U.S. President Obama and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been saying for a long time that the shura of Mullah Omar is present in Quetta [capital of Pakistan's Baluchistan province] and it is working freely from there. Now we must get ready to hear news that the U.S. Marines attacked Quetta and got out comfortably after doing another operation. Why were U.S. helicopters not noticed flying into the semi-military area of Abbottabad and the Kakul [Military] Academy? These are criminal lapses on the part of all the defense and security agencies, and liable for accountability.

"The proof of the presence of Osama in the country is in itself a slap on the face of the government and intelligence agencies. Whenever there came an announcement from the U.S. that Osama was hiding somewhere in Pakistan, it was either refuted or at the most it was asked that if there was any tip-off about him, it must be given to them and they would take the action themselves."

"This Unawareness of the Pakistani Institutions [about the Abbottabad Operation] Might Bring Great Troubles [for Pakistan]"

"[Former Pakistani military ruler General] Pervez Musharraf as the president had doubt about such information, for he thought that he [Osama] had been killed and that it was impossible for a person of such stature to keep hiding among the masses. There was also the news that Osama's kidneys were not working properly and he needed regular dialysis, so he could not live in remote hilly areas. Pervez Musharraf is now presenting his opinion in a different way. Federal Interior Minister Rahman Malik also kept saying with great enthusiasm that if there was any information about Osama, it should be given to them.

"But the U.S. is not ready to rely upon ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] or other agencies. According to the reports, the U.S. had information about his presence in Abbottabad for at least one year and it continuously kept watching through satellites. After the confirmation, it was ordered to carry out the operation a week ago. During this period Pakistan was kept totally unaware, but this unawareness of the Pakistani institutions [about the Abbottabad operation] might bring great troubles. Had the Pakistani agencies done this operation, there would have been some honor in it.

"Now the home minister of India [P. Chidambaram] and the puppet president of Afghanistan [Hamid Karzai] have this opportunity to say that terrorists receive shelter in Pakistan. Karzai says that the center of terrorism is Pakistan and not Afghanistan, and it has come to the fore regarding the new CIA chief [General David Petraeus] that he would fight the war in Pakistan. Blackwater, the mercenaries of the CIA, all will get a free hand to do whatever they want [inside Pakistan] because locating the hiding place of Osama would be credited to them only. Very many people should be made accountable for this serious lapse; but who will do this?"

"Now, No One will Believe Pakistan that There is No Taliban or Al-Qaeda Leadership in Pakistan"

"Now, no one will believe Pakistan that there is no Taliban or Al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. But a more serious question is this: what is the limit of American wilfulness [in Pakistan], and who would decide it? Obama has said that the United States can do anything, and that Osama was the killer of thousands of innocent people and that the process of justice was completed. But when will the killers of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine be brought to justice? When will they get justice?

"According to the reports, the body of Osama was buried in the sea. If this is true, then there arise many doubts. Why such urgency? Obama may get political mileage by killing Osama before the elections ,and can tell the American people that a big success was achieved and that billions of dollars spent in the fight against terrorism were not wasted. But will Al-Qaeda, which has by now spread into many countries, be finished with the killing of Osama? It's a fact that Osama was only a symbolic figure, and the real control was in the hands of Ayman Al-Zawahiri; and those who commit to their goal with all conviction do not get derailed by the death of one leader or another.

"Some others will come forward to take responsibility. Now Pakistan will have to face all the brunt of the reaction of the killing of Osama. Pakistan is already amid destruction and sabotage. Now it needs to be more vigilant that the story of Osama has come to an end, and not that of Al-Qaeda."

"The U.S. and Its Allies have Been Defeated in Afghanistan; The Mission for Which Osama has Sacrificed His Life has Almost Been Completed"

In an editorial titled "The American Claim Regarding the Martyrdom of Osama bin Laden," the pro-Taliban Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Islam wrote:[2]

"U.S. President Barack Obama, in an address to the nation, announced that the brave U.S. soldiers have killed the world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, in Abbottabad city of Pakistan. Although the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and some Afghan Taliban are claiming that Osama was not killed, the way the U.S. and the Western governments are attesting, the killing of Osama could be more shocking for them than 9/11 if it is proved wrong. It will be a nightmare for them if the news of his death was wrong.

"If Osama was really killed, then it will be a great achievement of the U.S. and its allies from their perspective and a setback for all the resistance movements against the U.S. polices. Some analysts believe that it could be an important success for the Obama administration, which has been facing pressure from public for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. Also, the thought of defeat in Afghanistan was a matter of great concern for his administration.

"But, as far as the war in the region and the U.S. position in this war is concerned, the martyrdom of Osama came 'very late' for them, because everyone knows that the U.S. and its allies have been defeated in Afghanistan. The mission for which Osama has sacrificed his life has almost been completed, because the likeminded of Osama, the Taliban, are now in the driver's seat in Afghanistan and no one can reject their role now, not only in Afghanistan but also in deciding the future of the entire region. They are now chasing the fleeing allied troops and displayed their mettle recently when they engineer the Kandahar jailbreak in an historic action."

"The Joy of the Elimination of ... [bin Laden] Could Be Temporary for the West, as They will Have to Hear Very Horrible News from the Afghan Battlefield"

"Looking at the whole scenario, the joy of the elimination of the most wanted person could be temporary for the West, as they will have to hear very horrible news from the Afghan battlefield, with the start of the summer as well as with the beginning of withdrawal of forces.

"They will not be able to enjoy the celebration for a very long time, which they are celebrating now. The U.S. and the West must have perceived that Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were just the symbol of anger which is prevailing in the Muslim world about the cruel policies of the U.S. and West.

"These figures are just the manifestation of this anger about the policies and action of the West regarding the Muslim world. The environment of hatred in the Muslim world will remain ifl the West and the U.S. continue the anti-Islam policies and until the disputes of the Muslim world are resolved accordingly."

"The Impediments in the Way of Resolving Disputes of the Muslim World are the U.S. and Its Western Allies; The U.S. is a Direct Party to the Palestinian Dispute"

"The impediments in the way of resolving disputes of the Muslim world are the U.S. and its Western allies. The U.S. is a direct party to the Palestinian dispute and has vetoed around 60 resolutions in the UN against the Israeli atrocities, thus proving its pro-Zionist and anti-Islam attitude.

"It is also supporting India over the Kashmir dispute. It has directly intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has occupied these two countries. Everyone across the world knows about the U.S. role in waging a media and intellectual war against the Muslims.

"While continuing such policies, if the U.S. thinks that it will influence the Muslim world by eliminating a few individuals and organizations, it is mistaken. Such kind of thinking will be illogical on their part. The West and the U.S. should now rethink their double standards in dealing with the Muslim world, and must resolve their long-standing disputes.

"The international community is aware of the fact that the Muslims have not occupied an inch of any other country's land. Wherever they are struggling, they are fighting for freeing their own land. They are struggling for right to rule their own lands and want to have power over their own resources.

"Also, according to a UN resolution, they have the right to have power over their resources and land. The Kashmiris, Palestinians, and Chechens want freedom in the same manner that the West granted to the Christians of the East Timor and Christian population of Sudan. Why don't they raise voice for the rights of Muslims?"

"If the West Thinks They will Subdue the World's One-Fourth Muslim Population Through Their Superior Military and Economic Power, It Will be Their Mistake"

"If the international community could not support the freedom struggle of these suppressed nations, they should at least stay away from supporting the countries that are suppressing these ethnic or religious minorities. Without addressing the miseries of Muslims, they could not crush their movements by sheer use of force. If the West thinks they will subdue the world's one-fourth Muslim population through their superior military and economic power, it would be their mistake.

"If permanent and lasting peace in the world is their objective, then a permanent system of justice must be put in place to settle all the international disputes as justice demands. Peace and injustice had neither co-existed nor will it in the future, especially in the modern world when a few individuals could destroy a powerful and imperialist country [e.g. the USSR]. It is important to stop injustices and brutalities against less powerful countries which compel them to resort to violence.

"If the news of Osama bin Laden's martyrdom is true, then with this a chapter of imperialist atrocities and the resistance against them has ended. For the coming generation, it has a message that if the injustice and brutalities of a people sharing a unique mindset [against Islam] are not eliminated, then retaliation against such exploitation and atrocities will also continue to be waged in different unpleasant forms."

"Such an Action Could Also be Carried Out Against the Sensitive Pakistani Installations [i.e. Nuclear Weapons Facilities]"

In an editorial titled "Osama's Killing, Some Questions for the Government," the Urdu-language daily Roznama Ummat observed the following:[3]

"U.S. President Barack Obama... said that Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed by the U.S. forces. He termed his killing as the biggest achievement of the American nation and added that this operation was carried out by a team of the U.S. forces in Abbottabad city of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province [of Pakistan], where Osama was hiding in a house...

"The international media has termed Osama's killing as a good omen for America and the Obama administration. But what will be its implications for Pakistan? In this regard, it is natural to raise some questions; and it is the responsibility of the Pakistani government to answer them. It is being said that the operation was not a joint one [with Pakistani security forces]; the U.S. forces carried out the operation by directly crossing the border into Pakistan.

"The question is: where were the Pakistani security forces deployed on air defense when the U.S. forces intruded into our country? This question is important also due to the fact that such an action could also be carried out against the sensitive Pakistani installations [i.e. nuclear weapons facilities]."

"Osama's Killing in a Very Important City will Now Justify Before the Entire World the U.S. Allegations that Pakistan is Supporting Terrorists"

"Pakistan has constantly denied the presence of Osama bin Laden on its soil. Now what answer will they give regarding his presence in Abbottabad? Osama's killing in a very important city will now justify before the entire world the U.S. allegations that Pakistan is supporting terrorists. They will say that Pakistan is a sanctuary for those elements against whom the U.S. is fighting. What answer will be given in response to this?

"[P.] Chidambaram, the interior minister of India, the eternal enemy of Pakistan, has immediately declared that the Al-Qaeda leader's death in Pakistan proves that the country is a safehaven for terrorists, and that those responsible for the Mumbai terror attacks are also hiding in Pakistan and should be handed to India.... Afghan President [Hamid Karzai also] has told a press conference in Kabul that 'we have been claiming that the war against terror should be fought outside our borders, and this has been proved once again.'

"The tension between the U.S. and Pakistani troops existed before this incident. Will this tension go down or flare up now? The terror attacks in Pakistan could increase after this incident. Those wanting to avenge the killing of Osama bin Laden can do anything... Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan spokesman Ihsanullah Ihsan has warned that they will avenge the Al-Qaeda leader's killing by targeting Pakistani security forces."

"Pakistan was Already Under U.S. Pressure; How will It Get Out of This Pressure?... There is A Danger of Pakistan's Role in the Future of Afghanistan Being Curtailed"

"Pakistan was already under U.S. pressure. How will it get out of this pressure? If Pakistan was not included in this operation, then what will be its role in the future of Afghanistan? For, there is a danger of Pakistan's role in the future of Afghanistan being curtailed after this incident. Apparently, the credibility of Pakistan is at stake on both sides, especially at a time when the U.S. is withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.

"The relatives of Osama have been arrested. To which country will they be handed over - the U.S., Saudi Arabia, or Yemen? It is possible that Osama's killing will minimize the threat of terror attacks in Europe and the U.S., but its repercussions will be negative in Pakistan. How will the government deal with the repercussions of this incident?

"The [lack of] preparedness of the government could be judged from its inability to issue any statement even after eight hours of the incident, and the one, when issued, was not satisfactory. Already faced with a serious crisis, the Pakistani nation is quite troubled and worried by this situation. However, if the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan is assured soon as a result of this incident and peace returns to Pakistan, then the fears and difficulties of the [Pakistani] nation can be eliminated.

"It appears that Obama needed impressions of victory and face-saving before withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, which has come to him in the shape of Osama's death. Now he can present the argument before the American nation that the U.S. forces achieved the target for which they had been deployed."


[1] Roznama Jasarat (Pakistan), May 3, 2011.

[2] Roznama Islam (Pakistan), May 3, 2011.

[3] Roznama Ummat (Pakistan), May 3, 2011.

© 1998-2011, The Middle East Media Research Institute All Rights Reserved. Materials may only be cited with proper attribution.

Reflections On The Osama-Obama Saga

From Personal Liberty Digest:

Reflections On The Osama-Obama Saga

May 17, 2011 by Robert Ringer

Of all the revealing things President Barack Obama has said throughout his career — in print, audio, video, and live — perhaps the most revealing of all was something he wrote in Dreams from My Father:

“Eventually a consulting house to multinational corporations agreed to hire me as a research assistant. Like a spy behind enemy lines [my emphasis], I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal, checking the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages from across the globe.”

Why would Obama, who was by then a grown man (not a philosophically confused college kid), feel like a spy behind enemy lines when he was working in the corporate world? There are differing opinions as to what he meant by these words, but to me the only explanation that makes any sense is the one that is… well, self-explanatory.

Though he has gone to a great deal of trouble and expense to destroy the paper trail leading to his radical past, what we do know about this mysterious son of a Kenyan Luo tribesman is that the essence of his being is a belief in redistributing wealth and, in the process, destroying both capitalism and the Western way of life.

Thus, when it was reported that Obama himself gave the order for a team of Navy Seals to kill Osama bin Laden, it raised the question: If Barack Obama is still the same left-wing radical he was when he was close pals with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, “Marxist professors” in college, et al, why would he order a hit on bin Laden?

The question proved to be rhetorical for many, as polls showed that anywhere from 2 percent (Rasmussen) to 11 percent (New York Times/CBS News) of Americans changed their opinion of Obama and gave him a favorable rating after the purported Osama bin Laden assassination in Pakistan. (Amazingly, some people even decided they liked his handling of the economy immediately following the bin Laden story! Don’t ask.)

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Osama bin Laden actually was killed as per the government’s description of the event (no hard evidence of what took place has been made available to the public), those who see it as a sign that Obama is a genuinely patriotic American are confused. Even if the facts the government has disseminated about bin Laden’s death are accurate, the event is totally unrelated to Obama’s obsession with “fundamentally transforming America.”


■First, never forget that the No. 1 mantra of the Left is that the end always justifies the means. As Left-wing radicals are fond of saying, in revolutions, innocent people get killed. In other words, the deaths of innocent bystanders is just one of those things — an unfortunate sacrifice for the greater good. That said, if the Left isn’t bothered by the deaths of innocent people, why would Obama care about Osama bin Laden getting a bullet through the eye?

■Second, can you name me a Left-wing leader, at any time in history, who was averse to killing either friend or foe? The Left has a history of employing violence. Nothing new there.

■Third, Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn’t give a second thought to turning on anyone who gets in the way of his main objective. Why would he care about Osama bin Laden when he didn’t care about his own “spiritual mentor,” Reverend Wright? Or Hosni Mubarak, one of America’s staunchest allies in the Middle East?

Those who now give Obama a favorable rating for supposedly ordering the killing of Osama bin Laden still don’t understand that Obama is the Master of Distraction. The whole event was simply a distraction from his ongoing destruction of the American economy.

When he recently visited the southern border (for the first time in his presidency!), it, too, was nothing more than a distraction ploy. Ditto his campaign speeches when he danced on the graves of the shooting victims in Tucson and those who died at Ground Zero.

Perhaps Osama bin Laden really was killed on May 2. So what? America’s real problem — Barack Obama — is alive and well and continuing right on with his Marx-Alinsky-Piven plan to complete the fundamental transformation of America into a redistributionist hell. Of course, he and the Queen of Anti-obesity will continue to eat caviar and lobster, but… hey… the leader of a revolution has to be comfortable and well fed. After all, under Marxism, some animals are more equal than others.

Obama is a highly disciplined individual, so rest assured that he has not lost his focus on the dreams he got from his communist father. His obsession with destroying entrepreneurship, capitalism, the economy, the dollar, free speech and, above all, the Constitution is stronger now than when he first gained entrance to the White House, courtesy of the mainstream media’s running interference for him.

C’mon, now… do you really believe Obama has banned drilling in most oil-rich areas because he wants to make America great again?

Do you believe he refuses to enforce existing laws on illegal aliens and border security because he wants to make America great again?

Do you believe he enriched the unions at the expense of the bondholders and propped up General Motors with your money because he wants to make America great again?

Do you believe he has appointed scores of radicals to important government posts because he wants to make America great again?

Do you believe he’s added $5 trillion to the national debt since taking office because he wants to make America great again?

The list is endless, and it continues to grow on a daily basis.

The Master of Distraction knows how important it is that he continue to distract the pudding heads who are anxious to give him a boost in the polls every time he makes a smart-aleck crack about tea baggers or moats or alligators. The truth is, he doesn’t give a damn about Osama bin Laden — or anyone else who isn’t integral to his revolutionary goals.

If it takes a bullet in someone’s eye to distract the American public, so be it. That said, I’d like to propose a national moratorium on the gushy applause for Chairman Obama for his “gutsy call.” Please, enough already with the naiveté.

–Robert Ringer

"The Perfect Day" And Our Terrorist Opponent's Possible Plans For Future Attacks

From Human Events--Guns & Patriots:

"The Perfect Day" and Our Terrorist Opponent's Possible Plans For Future Attacks

by LTC (RET) Dave Grossman


I have been told (by those conducting interviews with captured enemy combatants) that when we ask them "What is coming next?" they sometimes refer to the "Perfect Day." You cannot understand what they are talking about if you do not understand the historical reference.

The Sepoy Mutiny in India, in 1857, is an example of a "Perfect Day." This was a spontaneous uprising by Muslims (and Hindus), with everyone giving the British their "best shot." Nannies killed the kids, cooks poisoned the food, and shop owners murdered the British ladies as they came into the shop. And soldiers (sometimes complete units) killed their British officers and then used their weapons to attack the British.

The current politically correct term for the Sepoy Mutiny is "The First Indian rebellion." (You can look it up on Wikipedia, where the event has been completely PC filtered and revised.)

"The First Indian rebellion" is, to them, George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and the Alamo all rolled into one. And 99% of Westerners have never heard about it.

In their dreams and fond imaginations, this is what will happen across all of the "Crusader nations" who are in Afghanistan. Pick a day, and everyone gives it their best shot. If just one-in-a-thousand of the Islamic people in our nations answer the call to Jihad, it will still be thousands of attackers ... Some will opt for a "John Mohamed/Malvo" whacking people from the trunks of cars. Others for a Virginia Tech lone gunman in the school. Others will attack school busses, nannies will kill the kids, clerks will kill customers, cooks (in the elementary school?) will poison the cool-aid. Etc, etc.

The enemy thinks big, and we (with wishful thinking compounded by ignorance of their history) keep thinking small. The goal of this Perfect Day (in addition to terror) is to make us imprison (intern) our Islamic populations (as we did to the Japanese in WWII), thus making this a 'war against Islam' instead of the current war against terrorist groups and Islamist fundamentalists.

The idea of the "perfect day" goes way back in their culture. Look at the "Book of Esther" in the Bible. It takes place in Iran (ancient Persia) where the Jews are in captivity. Haman gets permission to kill all the Jews on a certain day. The whole book is about how they turned that around and killed all of Haman's people on that day.

This is their dream. Our goal is to prevent it through thru: careful study and understanding of their history and culture; assimilation (the French are an excellent example if what not to do in this area); and – most importantly – deterrence and detection, which is what I teach in my classes.

The enemy can be deterred! They fear one thing. They fear failure! They are not afraid to die: some of them want to die. But they desperately do not want to die for nothing! And our goal is to win a battle in the minds of millions of Islamic people in our nation, who are asking the key question: Can I succeed? Can I get a body count?

The key question we should ask is, "Why don't they do this to Israel?" And the answer is that the terrorists would love to! But, Israel is an armed society. The terrorist is largely deterred from this action by Israel's level of preparation. Until we reach the level of armed citizenry represented by Israel (and the sooner the better!) we are very vulnerable to this kind of attack.

In particular, we can see that states like Illinois, and Wisconsin (the only two states with absolutely no concealed carry for anyone, anyhow, ever), or California, Massachusetts, and others (with very stringent and limited concealed carry laws) are the most likely targets for this kind of attack.

The time may come when (like Israel) we need armed riders on every school bus and armed guards in every school and ever daycare center. And the only way that we can do so is (like Israel) to depend on armed citizens and armed teachers to protect their children.

The millions of Americans who are buying guns are not foolish. I would submit that they are doing the one thing that individual citizens can do, and that is to arm themselves. This is America. When faced with a threat we don't take away rights, we give you more rights! But with rights come responsibilities. We give you the right to purchase and carry weapons, and you have the responsibility to train with these weapons!

So, let me conclude with a series of quotes from leaders who have been in similar circumstances.

"Cogito, ergo armatum sum: I think, therefore I am armed."


Our forefathers knew that it is not enough to just have a weapon, it is also vital to be trained in the proper use of that weapon. In 1349, King Edward III of England told the citizens of London that their "skill of shooting" was being neglected, and he proclaimed that "every one of the said city, strong in body, at leisure times on holidays, use in their recreation bow and arrows, or pellets or bolts, and learn and exercise the art of shooting ... that they do not, after any manner apply themselves to the throwing of ... handball, football, cambuck, or cockfighting, nor suchlike vain plays which have nor profit in them."

-John Farnam


In 1457, King James II of Scotland banned the game of golf from the hills on which it was created. He argued that golf was a danger to national security as it distracted his soldiers from practicing their archery.

His grandson, James IV, a keen golfer, lifted the ban in 1502. Eleven years later, in the battle of Flodden against the English, Scotland suffered its worst ever military defeat.

-Wall Street Journal, 18 Aug '09


In 1636 a frustrated General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony unanimously passed an ordinance that said: “Whereas many complaints have been made to this Court, of the greatest neglect of all sorts of people of using the lawful and necessary means for their safety, especially in this time of so great danger from Indians, it is therefore ordered that no person shall travel above one mile from his dwelling without arms; upon pain of twelvepence for every default.”

Being unarmed was considered negligent! Self protection was not just a personal responsibility, it was a duty to the community! And for over a century after the danger from hostile Indians was eliminated, there was no suggestion that this ordinance be repealed. A century and a half later, those people were the leaders of the armed rebellion that created the United States!

-John Farnam


A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind.

Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.

-Thomas Jefferson to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson


Teddy Roosevelt said, while he was President, that: "We should establish shooting galleries in all the large public and military schools, should maintain national target ranges in different parts of the country, and should in every way encourage the formation of [shooting] clubs throughout all parts of the land... It is unfortunately true that the great body of our citizens shoot less and less as time goes on. To meet this [challenge] we should encourage ... practice ... by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving the peace of the world. Fit to hold our own against the strong nations of the earth, our voice for peace will carry to the ends of the earth. Unprepared and therefore unfit, we must sit dumb and helpless to defend ourselves, protect others, or preserve peace. The first step -- ... to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come -- is to teach our men to shoot.”


To a warrior, the golf course is a willful and deliberate misuse of a perfectly good rifle range!

-Jeff Cooper


Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of American, cannot succeed with any lesser effort

-John Fitzgerald Kennedy


Piss on golf! Real Americans go to the range!

-Dave Grossman


Dave Grossman, Lt. Col. USA (ret.) is the author of On Killing, On Combat, and Warrior Mindset.,

Are America's Wounded Troops Getting A Square Deal?

From Human Events--Guns & Patriots:

Are America's Wounded Troops Getting A Square Deal?

by Maj. General John K. Singlaub


President Teddy Roosevelt once said, “A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterward.”

With the patriotic Memorial Day holiday approaching, now is the perfect time to ask if our troops who have shed their blood in Afghanistan or Iraq are being properly thanked for their sacrifice.

The answer, sadly, is no.

Consider the case of Marine Christopher Chaput, from New Bern, NC. Christopher took a body full of shrapnel while hunting down terrorists in Afghanistan in September 2009.

While trying to recover from his painful wounds, Christopher says, he and his wife Kimberly were evicted, their cars were repossessed and “we were lucky if we ate once a day.”

Then Kimberly got pregnant, and they were facing a second eviction.

How could such a travesty happen to an American hero like Christopher Chaput . . . and his wife and baby? I’ll answer that in two words: Government bureaucracy.

Christopher and Kimberly were evicted while waiting for his government disability check to be processed – the disability check he earned by shedding his blood for our country.

At this very moment the same nightmarish situation may be happening to thousands of other severely wounded troops. According to a report by the Military, America’s veterans and wounded troops have to wait an average of six months for their first disability check to arrive after leaving the hospital and being separated from the military. Meanwhile they are facing evictions, home foreclosures, car repossessions, utility cutoffs – you name it.

Is that any way to treat a wounded hero? Of course not. And as a Guns & Patriots reader I know you agree.

What a great Memorial Day gift it would be if our government announced this problem would be fixed, pronto – and that Congress would not get another paycheck until our wounded troops were getting THEIR disability checks on time.

As someone who assists our troops seriously injured in Afghanistan or Iraq, I can tell you these military families are getting more and more desperate every day.

It’s not just the long wait for disability checks. Most of these families can’t afford caregivers for their loved one who has been paralyzed or blinded by a sniper’s bullet or severely burned or brain-damaged by a roadside bomb. So their spouse quits their job to care for them. Their family income plummets – and suddenly they are facing an eviction or scrambling to feed their children.

Over the past few months my colleagues at the Coalition to Salute America’s Heroes have received heartbreaking phone calls like these from our severely wounded Marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen.

• “I am one paycheck away from homelessness.”

• “We are running out of food, the phone bill needs to be paid and the lights were turned off this week.”

• “We have exhausted all the family’s resources, and we pray you will assist us.”

None of these things should be happening to any wounded hero, any time of year. But Memorial Day, when we pause to remember the brave Americans who sacrificed their lives for our country, is a perfect time to vow to help our wounded heroes as well.

The good news is the American people are incredibly generous, especially when it comes to our men and women in uniform. When the government lets our wounded heroes down, we run to the rescue by contributing to the private charities dedicated to serving those who have served – and suffered – for our nation.

So, what can you do to thank our severely wounded troops and their families this Memorial Day?

You can contact your elected officials and ask them to start giving our wounded heroes a square deal, financially speaking.

As for a solution a little closer to home, how about taking a wounded hero out to a ballgame or movie on Memorial Day, or inviting him or her to your backyard barbecue? If you live near a VA hospital I’m sure they could use a volunteer with strong hands and a warm heart.

And any wounded hero or veteran would be thrilled to receive a personal visit, phone call or greeting card with this simple, heartfelt message: “Thank you for your service to our country!”

I can promise whatever you decide will be deeply appreciated by our severely wounded troops and their loved ones this Memorial Day. After all, they were there for us, and now it’s our turn to be there for them.


Major General John K. Singlaub, U.S. Army (Ret.), parachuted into Nazi-occupied France during WWII to prepare French Resistance fighters for the Allied invasion, ran covert operations during the Korean War and commanded all U.S. Special Operations Forces in Southeast Asia during Vietnam. Today he works with the Coalition to Salute America�s Heroes, which provides emergency financial aid for troops severely wounded in Afghanistan or Iraq.


Time To Cut Off Pakistan

From Human Events--Guns & Patriots and Jihad Watch:

Time to Cut Off Pakistan

by Robert Spencer


Why is the U.S. government continuing to send billions of taxpayer dollars to Pakistan?

One way to give the economy a shot in the arm would be to stop sending huge sums of money to a nation that quite clearly is no longer our ally, if it ever was. The latest confirmation of this came Saturday, when the Pakistani parliament threatened to cut off NATO access to a transit facility used to get troops into Afghanistanin in retaliation for the American commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

One might reasonably have assumed that the Pakistani government, which has received well over a billion dollars a year from the United States since 9/11 in order to fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban, would be embarrassed by the fact that bin Laden was discovered on its soil, clearly enjoying—for years—the protection of highly placed Pakistani officials. In response to that embarrassment, it would have been reasonable to expect the Pakistani government to start working hard to demonstrate its trustworthiness to the Americans, to show them that all the money that the U.S. has poured into Pakistan has not been wasted, and that as it continues to flow, it will not be wasted.

Instead, Pakistan’s parliament not only threatened to cut off NATO’s access to the transit facility, but called for its working agreement with the United States to be reviewed. It was illustrative of where Pakistan stands in the fight against the global jihad, and where it has stood since Sept. 11, 2001. The U.S. has paid billions to Pakistan since then in order to aid its government’s fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. It has been revealed, however, that much of that money has gone to those same organizations, and that the ISI, Pakistan’s spy service, has significant ties with al-Qaeda.

And in light of that, it’s clear that the Pakistani parliament’s call for a review of Pakistan’s working agreement with the U.S. is a great idea. The U.S. should be reviewing it too, but instead President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others have reaffirmed Pakistan’s supposed value as an ally, and minimized the damage done by the revelations of how the Pakistanis sheltered bin Laden for so many years.

Estimates differ as to how long bin Laden lived in his now-famous compound. The British Telegraph has reported that the Pakistani government had sheltered him for 10 years, and that “American diplomats were told that one of the key reasons they had failed to find bin Laden was that Pakistan’s security services tipped him off whenever U.S. troops approached.” Indian journalist Chidanand Rajghatta noted that “the finger of suspicion is now pointing squarely at the Pakistani military and intelligence for sheltering and protecting Osama bin Laden. … The coordinates of the action and sequence of events indicate that the al-Qaida fugitive may have been killed in an ISI safe house.”

Instead of bristling with indignation and threatening its sugar daddy, the Pakistani government needs to come clean. It strains credulity to the breaking point to imagine that Pakistani officials, including the president, didn’t know that bin Laden was in the country, and in a safe house near Pakistan’s military academy. The circumstances of bin Laden’s last years and death indicate that Pakistan has been an even more unreliable and two-faced ally than anyone has realized up to now—and that is saying a great deal. It has now been several years since a report from the London School of Economics documented how Pakistani military intelligence was aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan, and was actually represented in the Taliban’s governing apparatus.

The fantasy-based policy making that has counted Pakistan as a U.S. ally for so many years has been thoroughly discredited. Yet no one in Washington is making any move to change our failed approach to affairs with this rogue state. It is the height of stupidity for the U.S. to continue to put itself in the position of being played for a fool and used as a cash cow by a Pakistani government that is more obviously than ever in league with our enemies.

Why should we fund those who are aiding and abetting the forces that wish to destroy us? It is long past time to cut off Pakistan.


Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad, Stealth Jihad and The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran (all from Regnery-a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

This Week In American Military History

From Human Events--Guns & Patriots:

First Enterprise to Gordo’s Big Day

by W. Thomas Smith Jr.


This Week in American Military History:

May 15, 1862: U.S. Marine Corporal John F. Mackie participates in an action against Confederate forces at Drewry's Bluff, Virginia, for which he will become the first Marine in history to receive the Medal of Honor.

According to his citation, “As enemy shellfire raked the deck of his ship, Corporal Mackie fearlessly maintained his musket fire against the rifle pits on shore, and when ordered to fill vacancies at guns caused by men wounded and killed in action, manned the weapon with skill and courage.”

May 15, 1963: Astronaut, fighter pilot, and U.S. Air Force Maj. Leroy Gordon “Gordo” Cooper Jr., piloting "Faith 7," becomes the first American to spend an entire day in space, and the first man to sleep in space.

A former U.S. Marine private who ultimately was commissioned an Army second lieutenant, Cooper will retire an Air Force colonel.

May 18, 1775: Future turncoat Col. Benedict Arnold leads a successful surprise attack against a British fort and the adjacent shipyards at St. Johns, Canada. Among Arnold’s prizes is the British sloop HMS George which he renames “Enterprise,” the first of eight so-named American Navy ships.

May 18, 1863: Union Army forces under the command of Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant move against the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi. Vastly outnumbered Confederate forces under Lt. Gen. John Pemberton fall back on prepared defenses. Pemberton’s army is quickly surrounded. Grant strikes Pemberton’s positions the following day hoping to destroy his army before it is properly positioned. Losses are heavy among the ranks of the assault forces. The siege of Vicksburg has begun.

May 21, 1881: Clara Barton, the Civil War’s famous “angel of the battlefield,” founds the American Red Cross.


Mr. Smith is a contributor to Human Events. A former U.S. Marine rifle-squad leader and counterterrorism instructor, he writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon. He is the author of six books, and his articles appear in a variety of publications. E-mail him at

Now What?

From Human Events--Guns & Patriots:

Now What?

by Oliver North


QUANTICO, Va. -- Here at this sprawling Marine Corps base south of our nation's capital, nothing has changed since Osama bin Laden met his demise in Pakistan. Thousands of Marines here at the "Crossroads of the Corps" are still waking up at "Oh-Dark-Thirty," going about their duties, running for miles, lifting weights and tossing each other about in hand-to-hand-combat drills.

Apparently these American heroes are unaware that Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass; Carl Levin, D-Mich.; and even Dick Lugar, R-Ind., and a host of others up the road in Washington, D.C., have decided that bin Laden's death means the war in Afghanistan has been won and most of our troops need to come home ASAP.

Here in the United States, politicians and pundits across the political spectrum are now saying that bin Laden's death means we can hasten our withdrawal from Afghanistan; that we can now make dramatic reductions in defense spending; and that we should cut off all military, economic, humanitarian and intelligence support to Pakistan.

According to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Kerry, the bin Laden operation "provides a potentially game-changing opportunity to build momentum for a political solution" and move to "achieving the smallest footprint possible in Afghanistan."

In the House of Representatives, a bipartisan group of eight lawmakers wrote to the White House claiming bin Laden's death "requires us to examine our policy of nation building in Afghanistan." They insist "it is no longer the best way to defend America against terror attacks, and we urge you to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan that are not crucial to the immediate national security objective of combating al-Qaida."

This all has to be music to the ears of Vice President Joe Biden, long an opponent of the counter-insurgency campaign advocated by Gen. David Petraeus. Count on the VEEP to make this argument in the days ahead as the administration decides how many U.S. troops to withdraw from Afghanistan this summer. It's exactly the wrong message for our friends and enemies in the world's most volatile region.

There is no doubt that the May 2 Spec Ops mission taking out bin Laden was a dramatic success and an example of unique U.S. capabilities. Unfortunately, the administration's decision to reap a political and public relations windfall from the operation has adverse implications for protecting U.S. interests in Pakistan and checking Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.

In Baghdad, radical Shiite factions are claiming the U.S. has no further need of a military presence in Iraq. And in Pakistan, those who have cooperated with American and military officials in the past are finding it more difficult to do so.

Though al-Qaida and the Taliban have both acknowledged that bin Laden is dead, Imams are seizing the moment to encourage their followers that this means the U.S. will "soon be leaving the lands of the prophet."

Nothing could be more pleasing to the theocrats in Tehran and those who want to bring down governments in the region deemed to be "insufficiently Islamic." For those of us concerned about the prospect of Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands or the regime in Tehran acquiring such a capability, the Obama administration's victory lap, and its nonstop hemorrhaging of information from the "treasure trove of intelligence collected in Abbottabad," could well prove disastrous.

The mission that resulted in bin Laden's death would have been significantly more difficult -- if not impossible -- without U.S. bases in Afghanistan. The theocrats ruling in Tehran, and those who hate us in Pakistan, know the American military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan poses a threat to an Iranian nuclear weapons program and "loose nukes" in Islamabad.

Sadly, all this "get out and get out now" talk is happening just as competent and capable Afghan National Security Forces are taking to the field. Though few in the mainstream media have been paying attention, our FOX News "War Stories Special Report" clearly shows how the recruiting, training, mentoring and partnering programs set in motion by Petraeus and Lt. Gen. William Caldwell are succeeding. So, too, are efforts by special agents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, NATO Special Operators and their Afghan counterparts to cut off the flow of funds to the Taliban and staunch official corruption.

For an inside "boots on the ground' perspective on how to win a war -- and a "white knuckle ride" along with the eyewitness participants who are fighting it -- this documentary is true "reality television." It's doubtful that Sen. John Kerry will be watching. He apparently never met a war he didn't want to lose.


Lt. Col. North (Ret.) is a nationally syndicated columnist and the author of the FOX News/Regnery books, "War Stories: Operation Iraqi Freedom," "War Stories II: Heroism in the Pacific" and "War Stories III: The Heroes Who Defeated Hitler." Lt. North hosts "War Stories Investigates: Drugs, Money and Narco-Terror" Saturday, Aug. 22, at 3 p.m. and 9 p.m. EDT on Fox News Channel.

Sailor Gets 34 Years In Prison In Espionage Case


Sailor Gets 34 Years in Prison in Espionage Case

May 23, 2011

Navy intelligence specialist Bryan Minkyu Martin was sentenced to 34 years in prison for attempted espionage.

NORFOLK -- Bryan Minkyu Martin, the Navy intelligence specialist convicted of attempted espionage, said Friday that he was "blinded by greed" when he sold classified documents to a man he believed was a Chinese spy.

A military judge Friday sentenced Martin to 34 years in prison a day after he pleaded guilty to 11 charges. The judge also issued Martin a dishonorable discharge.

Just before being sentenced at the military court at Norfolk Naval Station, prosecutors played about three hours of surveillance tape showing Martin and a man he knew only as Mr. Lee, actually an undercover FBI agent, exchanging cash for classified information on four occasions last year at motels near Fort Bragg in North Carolina.

In the last scene of the last tape, two armed men with bullet-proof vests burst into the room and threw Martin against the wall, handcuffing him. Martin could be seen trying to hide the cash he was just given.

The undercover agent paid Martin $11,500 total in exchange for three packets of documents containing information about current naval operations and intelligence assessments, including photos, satellite images and details about U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"My bosses are very pleased," the agent told Martin.

Martin acknowledged in court that he had betrayed his country but said he does not hate the United States.

"My soul was blinded by greed," he said.

"I am filled with remorse and self-loathing," he continued. "I was arrogant and greedy and selfish."

He then turned to his parents sitting behind him and wept as he apologized to them. His parents adopted him from South Korea and raised him in the small town of Mexico in upstate New York.

Martin, a 22-year-old reservist, was officially assigned to the Expeditionary Combat Readiness Center at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek in Virginia Beach. Until Friday, he was a petty officer second class working as an intelligence specialist.

Last fall, he was at Fort Bragg getting ready to deploy to Afghanistan. Military prosecutors would not reveal to whom Martin initially reached out or how he connected with the undercover agent.

In the first surveillance video, Martin tells the undercover agent that his personal finances "haven't worked out" and that he needed "long-term" extra income. He also said he was engaged.

In that first meeting, Martin offered secret and top secret documents and images on Afghanistan and the Taliban, North Korea, Russia and China, even asking whether there was a difference in compensation between information on Afghanistan and China.

"I know exactly what I'm getting into," Martin said. Martin received $500 from the agent that day.

"If you can do what you say you can do, you will not be poor," the agent told Martin. "I'm very happy that you called."

Security Expert's Special Forces Record Questioned


Security Expert’s SF Record Questioned

May 24, 2011
by Bryant Jordan

Skip HallJess "Skip" Hall, founder of a Birmingham, Ala.-based security and training company called "Hollow Point," doesn't mince words about wanna-bes who pretend to be more than they are. He uses the language of a former Green Beret and Vietnam combat veteran.

"There are many fakes and so-called experts in everything today," he says in the opening page to his blog, "starting [with] the individual in the White House."

On his website, Hall lists a number of qualifications and experiences beneath his photo, including "5th SF SOG A Team Leader, Vietnam." Another page includes an image of an "unofficial" 5th SOG patch from Vietnam -- a skull wearing a Green Beret -- and beneath it reads: "Skip Hall's Unit Patch."

But there's a problem with Hall's apparent outrage over phonies: He might be one too.

A retired Green Beret says Hall's Special Forces and Vietnam combat claims do not check out.

"He was a clerk typist and he spent all his time in Korea," said Jeff "JD" Hinton, who routinely ferrets out and exposes phony war heroes on his website, "He never went to Vietnam."

Hall's military records, copies of which he provided to, show he was initially trained as a repairman for crypto equipment at Fort Monmouth, N.J., in 1966. Some months later, he was reassigned to Fort Dix, N.J., and trained as a clerk typist.

Hall did not respond to's requests for an interview or comment. As of late Monday afternoon, his blog page and the Hollow Point website were down. A message on the Hollow Point page stated it was removed because information had been added to the site without Hall's approval.

"We express our appoligies [sic] for any misinformation this may have caused. Mr. Hall does not represent anyone in the military and makes no representation that he was previously affiliated or part of the U.S. Army, Special Forces or any other organization or agency."

In addition to Vietnam and Korea, Hall also claims to have served in the Middle East, to have worked as a Defense Department contractor, and that -- at 63 -- he was the world's oldest Mixed Martial Arts fighter.

And he was the oldest fighter until 71-year-old Dr. John J. "Gray Wolf" Williams came on the scene a few years ago.

At the time Hall retired from mixed martial arts in March 2008, he was profiled by NBC Sports writer Mike Chiappetta who mentioned Hall's combat experience. It was that article that put Hinton on the hunt for Hall's official records.

"One of our own [veterans] found him, actually found the article from MSNBC, and that started the ball rolling," Hinton said. "We've been looking into his past and did the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act request] and it came back with 'Clerk Typist' " for his Army job.

Hinton offers no opinion on any of the other achievements that Hall claims; he only cares about is Hall's claims regarding the Special Forces and combat in Vietnam.

Hinton, who retired from Army Special Forces as a master sergeant, uses official sources and personal connections in the Special Forces community to uncover phonies. Late last year, he exposed William G. Hillar, an instructor at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and widely known expert in human trafficking, as a fraud. Hillar had claimed to be a retired Army Special Forces colonel.

Hillar pleaded guilty in March to a charge of lying about his military background and experience on his application for work at the University of Oregon. He could get 20 years in jail when he returns to court for sentencing in July.

23% Of Disability Claims Processed Incorrectly


23% of Disability Claims Processed Incorrectly

May 21, 2011 • Ben Krause

In a recent audit of the VA Dis­abil­ity Com­pen­sa­tion Sys­tem at 16 Regional Offices, the VA Office of the Inspec­tor Gen­eral esti­mates that the rat­ing staff incor­rectly processed 23 per­cent of the 45,000 claims inspected.

The IG inves­ti­gated offices through­out the US and focused mainly on the han­dling of the fol­low­ing five types of claims: 1) extra-schedular 100 per­cent dis­abil­ity eval­u­a­tions (TDIU), 2) PTSD, 3) TBI, 4) Her­bi­cide Expo­sure, and 5) Haas (Haas v Nichol­son: “blue water” claims from Viet­nam Agent Orange expo­sure). The processes eval­u­ated ranged from mail han­dling to actual dis­abil­ity per­cent­age awards.

Of the 16 Regional Offices, Bal­ti­more, MD and Anchor­age, AK scored the low­est in com­pli­ance with VA stan­dards. Both failed to meet 14 of the 15 process require­ments. Extended man­age­ment vacan­cies were cited as one of the link­ing fac­tors between all poorly per­form­ing Regional Offices. Because of the vacan­cies, these offices lacked con­ti­nu­ity and proper over­sight. As a result, pro­ce­dures were not devel­oped or imple­mented to cor­rect pre­vi­ously iden­ti­fied prob­lems.

The Haas vs. Nichol­son claims had the high­est rate of error. In Jan­u­ary, the VA released a report claim­ing the TDIU errors would have resulted in an over­pay­ment of over $1.1 bil­lion by 2016. While this may be true, the VA made no effort to project the amount of dol­lars not paid to incor­rectly denied vet­er­ans who would oth­er­wise have qual­i­fied. It’s quite pos­si­ble that this amount might be much higher in the other direc­tion.

Mean­while, at 83 per­cent of the Regional Offices, Haas claims had a higher instance of the VA fail­ing to fol­low VA pol­icy (5 of 6 sur­veyed failed the stan­dard). Haas claims involve vet­er­ans who were likely exposed to Agent Orange but never set foot in Viet­nam. Prior to the 2006 Haas v Nichol­son deci­sion, mainly vet­er­ans who set foot on Viet­namese soil or road on craft up rivers in Viet­nam were enti­tled to the pre­sump­tion of expo­sure. Now, the VA is still attempt­ing to catch up to the claims back­log that was caused by the VA appeal of that 2006 deci­sion. In 2009, the deci­sion for Haas was upheld and the VA has since strug­gled to main­tain con­ti­nu­ity between offices in how the back­logged claims are processed. The report stated some of these claims were incor­rectly denied after the ini­tial Haas deci­sion was upheld.

Vet­er­ans receiv­ing denials or low-ball rat­ings within the past year for any dis­abil­ity rat­ings may want to con­sider imme­di­ately look­ing over their deci­sion and request a copy of their VA claim file. If the time passed since the deci­sion is close to the 12-month appeal dead­line, con­tact your Vet­eran Ser­vice Offi­cer to dis­cuss the pos­si­bil­ity of appeal­ing it, if war­ranted. There are both “for pay” and Pro Bono VSO’s. I sug­gest talk­ing to the Pro Bono peo­ple first. Try to find one you trust who will han­dle your claim in a pro­fes­sional man­ner.

Vet­er­ans already denied at the Board of Appeals review may want to con­sider speak­ing with a Vet­er­ans Law Attor­ney in their area, since VSO’s can­not rep­re­sent vet­er­ans before the US Court of Appeals for Vet­er­ans Claims. Two resources worth look­ing at are the National Orga­ni­za­tion of Vet­er­ans Advo­cates (NOVA) and National Vet­er­ans Legal Ser­vices Pro­gram (NVLS). There are many other attor­neys out there as well. A sim­ple Google search could ren­der qual­ity results as well. Just be sure the lawyer is accred­ited by the Depart­ment of Vet­er­ans Affairs. Of course, con­fi­dent vet­er­ans can always opt to rep­re­sent them­selves Pro Se before the court, as well.

Read more: