Thursday, June 30, 2011

Hamas-Linked CAIR Goes To War Against Free Speech, Tries To Deep-Six Expose Of Its Ties To Jihad Terror

From Jihad Watch:

Hamas-linked CAIR goes to war against free speech, tries to deep-six exposé of its ties to jihad terror

The thugs at Hamas-linked CAIR will stop at nothing to make sure that Americans remain ignorant about its own agenda and that of other Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups in America, and complacent in the face of the advancing jihad. "Astonishing lawsuit: Make exposé vanish: Attorney: 'This book at any time can be taken off shelves forever,'" by Art Moore for World Net Daily, June 12 (thanks to Douglas):

The powerful Washington, D.C., Islamic lobby group established as a front for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas is asking a federal judge to expunge all copies of a WND book that exposes its ties to radical jihad through original documents secured in a daring undercover operation.

In its latest court pleadings in a lawsuit against WND co-author David Gaubatz and his son Chris, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, effectively demands that the blockbuster book "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America" be removed from bookstores, online retailers and any supplier and "returned" to the Muslim group.

"This book at any time can be taken off the shelves forever and kept in the hands of Hamas," warned Gaubatz attorney Daniel Horowitz.

After filing two unsuccessful versions of its complaint, CAIR has filed yet another amended complaint that asks federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., to bar the Gaubatzes and anyone related to their effort from publishing the documents and recordings obtained in the undercover operation.

CAIR interpreted the judge's order to return all copies of the documents as a demand to also return "copies published in the book," according to a Joint Status Report filed April 22 in federal court in Washington, D.C....

Posted by Robert on June 13, 2011 3:56 AM

"Praise Allah. I'm Going To Kill The World"--Muslim Woman Makes Bomb Threat On D.C. Metro

From Jihad Watch:

"Praise Allah. I’m going to kill the world" -- Muslim woman makes bomb threat on D.C. Metro

Striking terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah, as directed by the Qur'an (8:60).

"McLean woman committed in Red Line bomb threat," by Dana Hedgpeth and Amy Orndorff in the Washington Post, June 13 (thanks to all who sent this in):

2:33 p.m. Update: The 51-year-old Mclean woman has been “involuntarily committed” at a facility that “has better resources to handle mental issues,” Metro spokesman Dan Stessel said. [...]

The bomb scare at Rockville happened at 7:45 a.m. when an eight-car train bound for Twinbrook was leaving the station, according to Metro Transit Deputy Police Chief Ron Pavlik.

A 51-year-old woman who lives in McLean dropped to her knees and said, “You killed my family. Now I’m going to kill you all,” Pavlik said[.] [...]

Stessel said the woman is a not U.S. citizen but she is a permanent resident. Her name is being withheld because charges are pending depending on her mental health evaluation, he said. [...]

Metro and emergency officials said there was no evidence that there was an explosive device, but the threat shut down rail service at Rockville Station. The station reopened about 9:45 a.m., according to reports from Metro. [...]

Tarek Nasser, a commuter, said the woman who allegedly caused the disturbance boarded the train at Shady Grove. The woman dropped to her knees and appeared to start praying. Later, the woman, who wore a hijab, began ranting about Muslim Americans on a cellphone, Nasser said.

Nasser recounted that the woman said, “‘I’m going to destroy the office.’” At another point, Nasser said the woman said “‘I’m going to visit the tomb at Rockville station.’”

Before the train left the Rockville Station, Nasser said the woman said, “‘God bless you all’” and got off the train. The doors closed and the train began moving. At that point, a passenger called the driver on an intercom, Nasser said. The train stopped and riders began panicking, Nasser said.

Commuters attempted to flee from the car where the threat was made. Passengers moved toward the front of the train, passing between the doors that connect the cars, several passengers said.

“I’ve never seen such panic before,” said Scott Brooks, a passenger. [The people at the front of the group] didn’t stop to explain. You could see they were really scared.” [...]

Robin Ratliff, who lives in Rockville and works downtown as a staff assistant for a human resources firm, said she was on the first car of the train headed to downtown this morning when the incident occurred. [...]

“People were panicked and running, trying to get off,” Ratcliff said.

Ratcliff said she did not see the woman who made the alleged threat, but heard other passengers running into the first car where Ratcliff was, saying the woman said “Praise Allah. I’m going to kill the world,” before throwing a backpack onto the train and exiting....

Posted by Robert on June 13, 2011 1:03 PM

Indonesian Authorities Foil Jihadist Plot To Poison Police With Cyanide

From Jihad Watch:

Indonesian authorities foil jihadist plot to poison police with cyanide

Whew, it's a good thing they're working so hard to keep the country safe from Ahmadis and Christians. "Densus 88 Arrests 16 Terror Suspects," by Farouk Arnaz for the Jakarta Globe, June 13:

Counterterrorism police have arrested 16 suspects involved in different terror plots, including a plan to carry out a mass poisoning of police, the National Police spokesman said on Monday.

"From Thursday till last Sunday, we've captured 16 individuals suspected of terrorism in various cases," Sr. Comr. Boy Rafli Amar said.

Of the 16 arrested by Densus 88, seven were arrested in Jakarta, two in Pekalongan, two in East Kalimantan, two in Central Sulawesi and one in Bandung.

The men arrested in Jakarta were involved in a terror plot to poison police, Boy said, adding that he was unable to provide any further information on the identities of the suspects.

On Friday, a police source told the Jakarta Globe that a suspect arrested in Pekalongan, identified as HK, was linked to a senior figure in Jemaah Islamiyah, Dulmatin.

Ali Fauzi, the young brother of convicted terrorist Mukhlas, said that he had spent time with HK in the Philippines.

“I was with HK for five years in Moro. He is the brother-in-law of Dulmatin. I hear that he was arrested for hiding Dulmatin before he was shot [dead] by the police last year,” Ali said.

Meanwhile, the police source on Monday said that seven arrested in Jakarta were a new terrorist network.

"So far they have not been involved in any other networks. They had only plotted to put cyanide in the food eaten by police officers," the source added.

More: "Cyanide terrorist taken to Jakarta," from the Jakarta Post, June 14:

A police official has unveiled that the police have taken four terrorist suspects to the police’s mobile brigade detention center for further questioning.

The suspects, he added, were Haryanto Abdul Jabar alias Furkon, Anang Muhtadin alias Papa Enal, Ali Miftah and Ali Firmansyah alias Ibrahim.

“They are part of the Poso terrorist group,” National Police spokesman Sr. Comr. Boy Rafli Amar said Monday as quoted by “Some used to work with Dulmatin as well.”...

Posted by Marisol on June 14, 2011 12:03 AM

Nigeria: Boko Haram Jihadists Open Fire On Beer Garden, Killing Four

From Jihad Watch:

Nigeria: Boko Haram jihadists open fire on beer garden, killing 4

Boko Haram is frequently portrayed as a loopy, but dangerous fringe group. But the group focuses its attacks on practices that are against Sharia, and their aim is the fundamental aim of jihad in all its forms: to impose Islamic law. "Nigerian Islamists open fire on beer garden, kill four," by Aminu Abubakar for Agence France-Presse, June 13 (thanks to Ima Freeman):

Suspected members of a radical Islamic sect have shot dead four people at a beer garden in a north Nigerian town where the group recently staged bomb and gun attacks, police said Monday.

"Four people were killed in an attack by gunmen suspected to be members of Boko Haram sect on a beer parlour in the Bulunkutu surburb of the city last night," Zakari Adamu, assistant police commissioner for Borno state told AFP.

The attack occurred in Maiduguri, the northeastern city which has been the focus of many attacks and where the group staged an uprising two years ago.

"The gunmen opened fire on people drinking in the beer parlour, killing four before engaging in a shootout with police who were attracted to the scene by gunshots", Adamu said on the phone from Maiduguri.

The assailants escaped.

Although Borno state is one of the 12 northern Nigerian states that have adopted the Muslim Sharia law, which bans alcohol, people there still drink beer openly.

The attack came a week after multiple bomb explosions and shootings targeting two police stations and a church rocked the city.

At least 14 people, including a pentecostal church pastor, were killed and 17 others seriously injured in the attacks.

Police have intensified surveillance in Maiduguri since last week's attacks, leading to 19 arrests and the recovery of weapons including two rocket launchers and kalashnikov rifles.

"We arrested 14 people along with the weapons while five others were arrested for bringing in bombs into the city," said Adamu.

The suspects have been taken to the police headquarters in Nigeria's capital Abuja for further investigation, he said.

Boko Haram, also known as the Nigerian Talibans, launched an uprising in 2009 which was put down by a brutal military assault that left hundreds dead.

The sect, which has pushed for the creation of an Islamic state, has been blamed for shootings of police and community leaders, bomb blasts and raids on churches, police stations and a prison.

Posted by Marisol on June 14, 2011 12:56 AM

Sudden Jihad Syndrome Strikes Drivers: Detroit Muslim Driver Intentionally Runs Down And Kills Police Officer

From Winds of Jihad:

Detroit: Muslim driver intentionally runs down and kills police officer

by sheikyermami on June 13, 2011

SUV Jihad

“A Buffalo Man Accused of Killing a Detroit Police Officer,” (via JW)

According to MyFoxDetroit:

“Witnesses say the man behind the wheel, Saddam Mohsin, 30, of New York, rammed the officer intentionally.”

Here we go again. I’ve said it before and will probably have to say it again: New York City cabdriver Mohammed Azam ran over two of his passengers for no apparent reason. Another cabbie, Hassan Daly, who was described as a “devout Muslim,” plowed his cab into a crowd on a sidewalk in San Diego, injuring over 24 people. Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar explicitly grounded his hit-and-run in the teachings of the Koran. Munir Muthana told the police who arrested him that “the Muslims will fix this country.”Omeed Aziz Popal, we were told, was suffering from stress from an arranged marriage. Ismail Yassin Mohamed, we were informed, was mentally ill, suffered from depression, and hadn’t being taking his medication. And Muhammad Teshale, according to “law enforcement officials,” “did it to be famous.”

Coincidence or jihad? Certainly there are a lot of hit-and-run and incidents involving people hit by cars that have nothing to do with Muslims, but in the cases listed here there is a degree of intentionality in these that we do not usually see.

“A Buffalo Man Accused of Killing a Detroit Police Officer,” by Jaclyn Asztalos for WKBW News, June 13 (thanks to JW):

Buffalo, N.Y. (WKBW)- Saddam Hussein Mohsin, 30, of Buffalo has been charged with attempted murder after hitting Detroit Police Officer Charles Armour with his car.

Mohsin was driving the wrong way down a one-way street, when Armour tried to approach his car to let him know he was driving illegally. Mohsin did not stop but ran the officer down, landing Armour in the hospital.

According to the Detroit News, his injuries did not seem life threatening. They said he was talking and posting updates to his Facebook page. Then on Saturday, his health began to go down hill and just hours later he was dead.

Those who knew Armour said he was a gentleman and Detroit Police Officer who was well liked….

Mohsin is charged with attempted murder and remains in prison for $500 thousand on bail.

Armour is survived by his parents, four-year-old daughter and girlfriend. He was a 16-year veteran of the Detroit Police Department.

Police "Covered Up" Violent Campaign To Turn London Area "Islamic"

From Europe News:

Police 'covered up' violent campaign to turn London area 'Islamic'

 14 June 2011

By Andrew Gilligan

Victims say that officers in the borough of Tower Hamlets have ignored or downplayed outbreaks of hate crime, and suppressed evidence implicating Muslims in them, because they fear being accused of racism.

The claims come as four Tower Hamlets Muslims were jailed for at least 19 years for attacking a local white teacher who gave religious studies lessons to Muslim girls.

The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered more than a dozen other cases in Tower Hamlets where both Muslims and non-Muslims have been threatened or beaten for behaviour deemed to breach fundamentalist "Islamic norms.”

One victim, Mohammed Monzur Rahman, said he was left partially blind and with a dislocated shoulder after being attacked by a mob in Cannon Street Road, Shadwell, for smoking during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan last year.

"Two guys stopped me in the street and asked me why I was smoking,” he said. "I just carried on, and before I knew another dozen guys came and jumped me. The next thing I knew, I was waking up in hospital.”

"He reported it to the police and they just said they couldn’t track anyone down and there were no witnesses,” said Ansar Ahmed Ullah, a local anti-extremism campaigner who has advised Mr Rahman. "But there is CCTV in that street and it is lined with shops and people.”

Teachers in several local schools have told The Sunday Telegraph that they feel "under pressure” from local Muslim extremists, who have mounted campaigns through both parents and pupils – and, in one case, through another teacher - to enforce the compulsory wearing of the veil for Muslim girls. "It was totally orchestrated,” said one teacher. "The atmosphere became extremely unpleasant for a while, with constant verbal aggression from both the children and some parents against the head over this issue.” (...)

Posted June 14th, 2011 by pk

Brits Set To Release 100 Jailed Islamic Radicals In Time For 2012 London Olympics

From Europe News:

Brits Set To Release 100 Jailed Islamic Radicals In Time For 2012 London Olympics

Weasel Zippers 14 June 2011

THESE ten Islamic terrorists — shown below — are among 100 jailed fanatics who will be out on the streets of Britain in time for the Olympics. They include extremists with convictions for bomb plots and conspiracy to murder.

Two evil recruits from one of the most dangerous al-Qaeda gangs uncovered in the UK will walk free before the London Games start next July 27.

Government security chiefs have warned that terrorism remains the greatest threat to events expected to attract 500,000 spectators.

There are fears of attacks by chemical and biological devices — with public transport a likely target.

Most of the men due for release are in their 20s and 30s. MI5 chief Jonathan Evans said: "We know some of them are still committed extremists likely to return to their terrorist activities.” (...)

Posted June 14th, 2011 by pk

The Serbia Standard

From Europe News;

The Serbia Standard

Gates of Vienna 14 June 2011

As most readers already know, a couple of days ago the comment thread on Fjordman’s essay descended into a Jew-obsessed free-for-all with which we are all too familiar, and which I have come to dread.

Such threads do not change anybody’s mind. They serve no useful purpose, as far as I can tell. People vent at each other for a while, and then the thread peters out, or someone fails to control himself and jumps the perimeter fence, forcing me to close the comments.

Since a lot of the very finest people I work with in the Counterjihad are Jewish conservatives, it does not align with my strategic interests to create any more flypaper for Jew-haters.

For these reasons, I was hesitant about posting anything further on the topic, knowing what is likely to develop in the comments section as a result. But today we received an email appeal from an Israeli woman, and it made me change my mind. I’ll get to that later on in this post, but first let’s talk about Serbia.

The subject came up because one of the commenters on the earlier post mentioned Srdja Trifkovic, the Serbian-American historian. Dr. Trifkovic’s history of the Ustasha in Croatia before and during World War 2 is unparalleled. The Jews and the Serbs were corralled together and massacred in the extermination camps of Croatia, with the support (and participation) of a number of Roman Catholic priests and bishops. These are historical facts, thoroughly documented, and Dr. Trifkovic’s work on the topic is exhaustive.

For this reason, I have learned to apply what I call the "Serbia Standard” to those who argue about Israel and the Jews. Anyone who supports Israel (as I do) should also support Serbia for the same reasons. Like the Jews, the Serbs were victims of an attempted extermination during the Second World War. Like the Jews, the Serbs have been unjustly demonized. Like the Jews, the Serbs are under siege by Islam in their own land.

Since the Russians often go to bat for the Serbs, one could even make the case for a vast international conspiracy that works behind the scenes to promote Serbian interests.

Those who are gung-ho about the Jews and Israel but refuse to support the Serbs and Serbia (or who actually vilify them) are intellectually inconsistent and incoherent, so their arguments may be justifiably disregarded.

The Jews now have their own state, as do the Serbs. Both nationalities suffer at the hands of those who would damage or destroy them. Therefore the Jews deserve no more special treatment than do the Serbs, and vice versa.

The Serbia Standard serves as a useful way of weeding out disingenuous and hypocritical arguments by those who support Israel. If they fail to support the Serbs, it exposes their special pleading. I presume it could do the same for anyone who treats Serbia in a similar preferential manner.

Supporting both Serbia and Israel is a useful strategy. So is supporting Finland, Latvia, Romania, Italy, Ireland, Australia, Texas, Virginia, and many other nations that are bastions of Western traditions.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dymphna and I received the following email this morning from a woman in Israel who has asked to remain anonymous:

Dear Gates of Vienna blog managers (Baron and Dymphna),

I write you from Israel, after reading the latest overheated debate on the "Jewish question”.

Actually, I have followed your blog for some time, in order to get news that is unavailable to the Israeli population (as well as most of the West).

A huge thank you for a priceless work you are doing — from all my heart.

Well, why I decided to write you this convoluted letter at all...

You see, the heated point was very justifiably raised first by certain people about the participation of those enlightened Jews/Jewish organizations in the PC wars enabling the "enrichment”. I won’t argue the fact that they play a relatively big part (based on their population percentage) in the issue, and it’s a point that should be discussed. Shutting it down won’t do any good to anyone, especially to Jews who like me have nothing whatsoever to do with this disastrous campaign.

Nonetheless, I have to admit that the discussion has turned from informative at first to downright ugly. Well, I think you took notice of that — and that’s not why I’m writing to you.

You see, what I wanted to tell is that those Jews and their organizations like George Soros’, or the infamous J-Street, are the mortal enemies of Israel as well — just as they are against the Western traditional world.

Here in Israel the situation is pretty much the same as in Europe or in USA — the radical Left rules in the media and the academy (no matter what the elected government tries to do), and they do everything they can to discredit their own state, including all the usual "enrichment” stuff and all. Anyone who seems even slightly "right” to them is immediately defined as "bigots”, "racists”, "radicals” and so on.

In short — all the usual stuff you’re so familiar with.

I just wanted to explain and stress this important detail that I believe was mostly absent from the discussion —Israel and the Western Traditional world have one common enemy. And this enemy has a lot of radical lefty Jews among them — many of them with power and money. While we, the regular Israeli citizens, don’t have any of that. And they use it against us exactly as they use it against you.

Those who continue to blame all Jews without distinction naively/wrongly think those Jewish magnates defend Israel, yet attack and get revenge on the West.. No, they do not. They attack Israel as well, yet they do it while covering their poisonous attacks by disguising them as compatriot help and care (Soros even doesn’t care about the cover-up).

We are desperate...

Please, I just wanted to deliver the message.

I don’t want to go public with it, yet if you want to use this letter because you have to — please, drop my name and let me stay anonymous.

I’m more than happy to deliver this lady’s message. Zenster asked for a thread to discuss this topic, and she has fortuitously helped us to create it.

And I ask all of you to consider the Serbia Standard. Whether for or against, do you apply the same standards to both Serbians and Jews?

I have no time for arguments that fail the Serbia Standard. They lack intellectual rigor.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Side note: Very few people, except those who have visited Israel and know something about Israeli society, are aware that there are social problems with Jews too who originate in North Africa, and deep divisions in Israel between the Ashkenazi and African-origin Jews from Muslim countries. Takuan Seiyo wrote an article several years ago that outlines some of the issues.

Note from Dymphna

For those readers who intend to reprise the comments thread on Fjordman’s post: resist that temptation.

This post is not about the machinations of the evil Jooooos and their secret conspiracy to gain world dominance. Been there. Done that. Vent somewhere other than on this blog about that subject.

This post concerns the fact that progressive idjits are trying to destroy Israel, and they want to take the rest of the West along on their suicide mission. Are there Joooos in that group? Sure. But they are only part of it.

Instead of pondering the JQ, let’s look at the PQ — the "Progressive Question”— and maybe the fact that so many high-IQ folks can put their intelligence in neutral while they serve an evil cause. Obviously, intellect has little bearing on wisdom or long-term survival with this group.

Sooo…them’s the rules: JQ has been ruled off the turf. There won’t be a repeat of what happened the other day when the comments thread on Fjordman’s post went sideways, much to his distress.

Yes, I know, I know: policing this thread makes me a coward, afraid of free speech. However, the notion of "free speech” never entitles a person to dump whatever they choose on my parlor floor. Such arguments are best left behind in the schoolyard as people mature. At best this unbridled speech is anarchistic.

Gates of Vienna is where we make our living. The comments threads contribute to our character and reputation. It’s a friendly place as long as civility is maintained. Outside our fence, say whatever you want. But inside my front gate the rules are clearly posted.


Posted June 14th, 2011 by pk

Ratco Mladic, Killing 3,500 Christians Near Srebrenica And Islamic Jihad

From Europe News:

Ratko Mladic, killing 3,500 Christians near Srebrenica and Islamic jihad

Pakistan Christian Post 14 June 2011

By Lee Jay Walker

After all, from enslaving Orthodox Christians during their brotherly love with the Turkish slave masters of the Ottoman Empire to having Muslim SS units who supported Adolf Hitler; then "victimhood” is needed in order to justify their history and culture.

Of course the wishy-washy brigade will tell us that the Ottoman period was enlightened and that the system of taking the eldest Christian boy (devshirme system) in the Balkans and converting them to Islam was noble.

Yes, slavery in the modern era being justified and not mere slavery because the system meant that they would kill their own people in the name of Islam after being indoctrinated by Islamists in the Ottoman Empire.

However, the liberal agenda tells us that Europe owes so much to Islam. Strange because Islam took the sword to Europe and enslaved and colonized and this reality shames historians and commentators who manipulate history. After all, if people stated that the Atlantic slave trade was enlightening then people would be rightly condemned. However, when scholars and journalist speak about a tolerant Islamic Ottoman Empire or about their man made multi-religious Bosnia then the elites clap in admiration while leaders in Mecca dream about Islamization by stealth jihad.

Of course even the Atlantic trade route is also manipulated because little is said about the Arab and Turkish enslavement of Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. These tens of millions of slaves do not count and it would not suit the agenda to mention white slaves and Hindu slaves.

The Orthodox Christian world along with Africa and the Hindu world suffered so much at the hands of Islamic slavery and Protestant and Catholic imperialism which also enslaved. This reality is forgotten and it appears that even in recent times that Orthodox Christians and Hindus do not count.

After all, three wars in the Balkans since the 1970s in Bosnia, Cyprus and Kosovo and every time the West supported Islam. Also, the Turkish genocide which killed millions of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks, is still not recognized despite several million Christians being slaughtered in 1915 and the following years (major pogroms took place also before this date).

Similarly, the de-Hinduization of Kashmir, Bangladesh and Pakistan does not seem to hit the headlines in modern times. Therefore, while the Muslim population remains strong in India and is growing the Hindus of Bangladesh, Kashmir and Pakistan are in free fall in percentage terms.

Alas, it appears that Orthodox Christians and Hindus don’t count!

Turning back to Srebrenica and the reality or unreality of what really happened. After all, Bosnian Muslims have to justify their past misdeeds and Western powers need to justify killing from the air during the bombing of Serbia.

You see, when NATO bombing attacks against mainly civilians took place in Serbia this was deemed to be "Western civilization.” Yes, the overwhelming majority of people killed were not military fighters in the army of Serbia but were civilians and bombing hospitals, the infrastructure and so forth was all justified in the name of "Western civilization.”

Strange, because when several million Africans who were mainly Christian or Animist were being killed in Southern Sudan by the Arab Muslim regime then nothing was done. Therefore, "the double standards” or should I say "no standards” was at work once more and the twisting of history and reality was done in order to suit an agenda.

The House of Saud must have been so pleased with both events. After all, kill millions of African Christians and Animists in Sudan in order to Arabize and Islamize and the West does nothing. At the same time create two Islamic dominated states in Europe with Kosovo being accomplished and Bosnia being the future hope after the enforced demise of the Bosnian Serb Republic.

This is where Srebrenica suits the agenda in order to cover-up all the misdeeds of past history and this applies to Bosniak Muslim history and the Western bombing of Serbia which enabled a body organ transplanting leadership to take power.


Before going deeper into what happened in Srebrenica it is important to clarify that thousands of Muslims were killed after Bosnian Serbian forces took Srebrenica. This applies to not only Muslim soldiers who were killed but also innocent Muslims who were also killed during the mayhem of events.

Srdja Trifkovic, who is an historian, foreign affairs analyst and respected author, states the following:

"During the Bosnian war between May 1992 and July 1995, several thousand Muslim men lost their lives in Srebrenica and its surroundings. Most of them died in July of 1995 when the enclave fell unexpectedly to the Bosnian Serb Army and the Muslim garrison attempted a breakthrough. Some escaped to the Muslim-held town of Tuzla, 38 miles to the north. Many were killed while fighting their way through; and many others were taken prisoner and executed by the Bosnian Serb army.”

Srdja Trifkovic continues by stating that "It is often pointed out that Srebrenica was an UN "protected zone,” but it is seldom noted that the enclave was simultaneously an armed camp used for attacks against Serb villages in the surrounding areas. Muslim General Sefer Halilovic confirmed in his testimony at the Hague Tribunal that there were at least 5,500 Bosnian Army soldiers in Srebrenica after it had obtained the "safe haven” status, and that he had personally arranged numerous deliveries of sophisticated weapons by helicopter.”

This statement is important because the Muslim General, Sefer Halilovic, confirms that you had at least 5,500 Bosnian Muslim Army soldiers in Srebrenica. More important, these fighters had slaughtered more than 3,500 Christians prior to the fall of Srebrenica and this applies to young children, women and the elderly in surrounding villages.

Even worse, the so-called safe haven meant that Bosnian Muslim forces would attack outside of the main area of central Srebenica and kill Orthodox Christians. However, they would then return to Srebrenica in order to be protected and to re-enforce their stronghold and this applies to re-arming and so forth.

The UNPROFOR commander, French General Philippe Morillon, testified that the crimes committed by Bosnian Muslim forces were "extraordinary” and made the Serbs’ desire for revenge to be "inevitable.”

Philippe Morillon clearly stated the name of the Bosnian Muslim commander Naser Oric who was known for being sadistic. On February 12 in 2004 at The Hague Tribunal Philippe Morillon testified that Bosnian Muslim forces under Naser Oric "engaged in attacks during Orthodox (Christian) holidays and destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants. This created a degree of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region.”

Philippe Morillon is clearly commenting about the massacres of thousands of Orthodox Christians who were killed in the surrounding region. This applies to Christians being burnt alive, beheaded and so forth.

This Srebrenica is about two military forces being the Orthodox Bosnian Christian Serb forces and the Bosnian Muslim forces. Therefore, the real Srebrenica is very different and if General Ratko Mladic did not have Bosnian Serb units in the region to stem the massacre of Orthodox Christians then the figure of 3,500 deaths would have been even higher.

Also, from a military point of view the Bihac Muslims in Western Bosnia under Fikret Abdic had supported the Bosnian Serbs but in time they would be crushed by Bosnian Muslim forces under the Islamist, Alija Izetbegovic. At the same time during the civil war in Croatia the Krajina Serbs would be forced out and many innocent Orthodox Christians would be killed and "cleansed.”

Srebrenica was part of a bigger battle and little is said about Serbian Christian areas in Sarajevo which were taken by Islamist military forces under Alija Izetbegovic. Therefore, not only had Srebrenica Muslim forces killed and slaughtered thousands of innocent Orthodox Christians in the surrounding region; but their brutality and numbers of more than 5,500 military Muslim soldiers meant that Bosnian Serb units were being pinned down.

It was a situation that was leading to vented up hanger and hatred. After all, why wasn’t Krajina a protected area for Orthodox Christian Serbs and the same applies to Bihac where Muslims were moderate and wanted protection from Bosnian Islamist forces under Alija Izetbegovic….why weren’t these areas protected?

In fact, not only were the protected safe havens biased towards the Muslims who supported the Islamist Alija Izetbegovic; but at the same time thousands of international Islamists were allowed to enter Bosnia in order to slit the throats of Orthodox Christians and Catholic Christians because to international Islamists the war had a different meaning because it was an Islamic Jihad in their eyes.

Not only this, Bill Clinton who supported the Islamists who were given tacit approval to slaughter Orthodox Christians had a double agenda. This applies to allowing thousands of international Islamists into Bosnia and at the same time to build up both Croatian Catholic units and the Bosnian Muslim Islamist leadership of Alija Izetbegovic.

Time was not on the side of the Bosnian Christian Serbs and in this sense General Ratko Mladic is being tried in the courts of The Hague because he had held out against a huge united and international agenda. Indeed, for the Bosnian Serbs to have held out and maintain a vast area of Bosnia is remarkable given the fact that America, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and many others, alongside international Islamists like Al Qaeda, had all worked together in order to defeat the Bosnian Serbs.

Major-General (Ret) Lewis Mackenzie who is a retired Canadian general also raises serious doubts about so-called "good” and "evil.” In his article called

"The real story behind Srebrenica. The massacre in the UN ‘safe haven’ was not a black and white event,” which was published in The Globe and Mail (July 14, 2005), he clearly highlights neglected areas.

Major General (Ret) Lewis MacKenzie states the following:

"As the Bosnian Muslim fighters became better equipped and trained, they started to venture outside Srebrenica, burning Serb villages and killing their occupants before quickly withdrawing to the security provided by the UN’s safe haven. These attacks reached a crescendo in 1994 and carried on into early 1995 after the Canadian infantry company that had been there for a year was replaced by a larger Dutch contingent.”

"The Bosnian Serbs might have had the heaviest weapons, but the Bosnian Muslims matched them in infantry skills that were much in demand in the rugged terrain around Srebrenica. As the snow cleared in the spring of 1995, it became obvious to Nasar Oric, the man who led the Bosnian Muslim fighters that the Bosnian Serb army was going to attack Srebrenica to stop him from attacking Serb villages. So he and a large number of his fighters slipped out of town. Srebrenica was left undefended with the strategic thought that, if the Serbs attacked an undefended town, surely that would cause NATO and the UN to agree that NATO air strikes against the Serbs were justified. And so the Bosnian Serb army strolled into Srebrenica without opposition.”

General Morillon bluntly states that "Naser Oric was a warlord who reigned by terror in his area and over the population itself. I think that he realized that these were the rules of this horrific war, that he could not allow himself to take prisoners. According to my recollection, he didn’t even look for an excuse. It was simply a statement: One can’t be bothered with prisoners.”

Morillon also recounts how "the Serbs took me to a village to show me the evacuation of the bodies of the inhabitants that had been thrown into a hole, a village close to Bratunac. And this made me understand the degree to which this infernal situation of blood and vengeance [...] led to a situation when I personally feared that the worst would happen if the Serbs of Bosnia managed to enter the enclaves and Srebrenica.”

"I feared that the Serbs, the local Serbs, the Serbs of Bratunac, these militiamen, they wanted to take their revenge for everything that they attributed to Naser Oric. It wasn’t just Naser Oric that they wanted to revenge, take their revenge on; they wanted to revenge their dead on Orthodox Christmas.”

It is clear that the Bosnian Muslim forces and Srebrenica is not the "innocent Muslim lamb” which is being told; on the contrary "Srebrenica was a fortified Islamic stronghold which butchered and slaughtered innocent Orthodox Christians in the surrounding region.”

Also, events on the ground were changing rapidly and this applies to Bihac, Mostar, Krajina and many parts of Bosnia and Croatia. In the ensuing mayhem massacres on all sides took place and in Bihac it was local Muslims who were killed by Islamic forces which supported Alija Izetbegovic.

Indeed, it is strange that Alija Izetbegovic and Muslim units cared so much about crushing the moderate Muslims of Bihac when it was claimed that they were overstretched and facing genocide. However, this is a different issue but interesting all the same because it shows you the limitations of many journalists who followed the "Islamist Alija Izetbegovic party line” and it shatters the myth because Serbian forces had helped the Muslims of Bihac.

Lord Owen also vindicates what General Morillon stated because on page 143 of his book, Balkan Odyssey, the respected Lord Owen comments that "On 16 April I spoke on the telephone to President Milosevic about my anxiety that, despite repeated assurances from Dr. Karadzic that he had no intention of taking Srebrenica, the Bosnian Serb army was now proceeding to do just that. The pocket was greatly reduced in size. I had rarely heard Milosevic so exasperated, but also so worried: he feared that if the Bosnian Serb troops entered Srebrenica there would be a bloodbath because of the tremendous bad blood that existed between the two armies. The Bosnian Serbs held the young Muslim commander in Srebrenica, Naser Oric, responsible for a massacre near Bratunac in December 1992 in which many Serb civilians had been killed. Milosevic believed it would be a great mistake for the Bosnian Serbs to take Srebrenica and promised to tell Karadzic so.”

In a past article I state that "I have given quotes from people who were on the ground and from people who know a lot about the real events of Bosnia and Srebrenica. It would be difficult to claim that Lord Owen, General Morillon, and Lewis MacKenzie, are pro-Serbian or that they are holocaust deniers.”

"Therefore, it is clear that "the real Srebrenica” is not being told and the same applies to the "hidden Islamic jihad” which took place during the civil war and how ex-President Bill Clinton gave the green light to Islamists from all over the world to enter Bosnia.”

Srebrenica should be remembered but it should be remembered in its duality and this applies to thousands of innocent Orthodox Christians and Muslims who were killed by both sides. It also should be remembered that Bosnian Muslim forces had slaughtered thousands of Christians first in the surrounding region of Srebrenica and that the "safe haven” was abused and generals from the international community who were on the ground state this clearly and Morillon testified in court.

Lewis MacKenzie comments that "two wrongs never made a right, but those moments in history that shame us all because of our indifference should not be viewed in isolation without the context that created them.”

With this powerful comment in mind and the complex nature of Bosnia and Croatia and the inner-struggle between the Muslim community in Bihac against the Islamist Alija Izetbegovic; alongside the international Islamist movement and Al Qaeda being involved; and the arming of Bosnian Muslim forces and Croatia by America, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others. Then Srebrenica can’t be talked about by one single event because what happened before and the complexity of the civil wars means that the entire picture must be seen and the "evil and hatred” which existed was based on events prior to Bosnian Serb forces entering Srebrenica.

In all civil wars you have massacres and no side is innocent and anybody who says differently is biased to the extreme. If you view Hiroshima and Nagasaki and ignore events prior to this and the carpet bombing of Germany and Japan where millions were killed; then all the massacres which took place by Germany and Japan will not be viewed and in isolation you have a mass distortion of reality.

This is what is happening about Srebrenica; a huge distortion of reality and past events are being ignored and manipulated to an extreme point of view and which is anti-Serbian.

Ratko Mladic from a Bosnian Serb point of view held out against multiple forces and this applies to the Bosnian Muslim forces, Catholic Croatian forces, international Islamists and nations like America, Iran, and Saudi Arabia who were re-arming the Croatians and Bosnian Muslim forces who supported Alija Izetbegovic.

If genuine healing is to take place or if the truth counts for anything; then Srebrenica should be remembered for the fallen on all sides.

It is not good enough to say that the deaths of more than 3,500 Orthodox Christians don’t count and to ignore the fact that the main massacres which took place in the region had been started by Bosnian Muslim forces.

A joint memorial would indicate that both sides killed innocents in and surrounding Srebrenica. The massacre of innocent Christians and Muslims is a fact but the "Muslim victim card” and the "international community” desire to "cleanse their role in Srebrenica.” (Islamists in Bosnia because of USA, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Islamist Alija Izetbegovic) (Islamists in Bosnia because of USA, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Islamist Alija Izetbegovic) (Muslim massacres of Christians) (Inter Muslim fighting – Serbs supported moderate Muslims) (Henry Kissinger) (Henry Kissinger)

Posted June 14th, 2011 by pk

NATO: The Potemkin Alliance

From The CATO Institute:

NATO: The Potemkin Alliance

by Ted Galen Carpenter

This article appeared on The Daily Caller on June 13, 2011.



Sans Serif


Share with your friends:


In one of his final speeches as secretary of Defense, Robert Gates took NATO allies to the woodshed. Addressing the leaders of the alliance at a meeting in Brussels late last week, Gates criticized European spending priorities, which have led to penny-pinching on military spending as governments shift financial resources to domestic programs. If that did not change, he warned, NATO's future was "dim, if not dismal."

Gates did not mince words. "The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress, and in the American body politic writ large, to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense."

Those are understandable sentiments, since the defense budgets of the European allies, which tended to be anemic even during the Cold War, have been in virtual free fall in recent years. The commitment that all NATO members made to devote at least two percent of their gross domestic product to defense spending is now little more than a quaint, irrelevant historical memory. Virtually none of the European members, from "Old Europe" or New Europe, have met that target.

Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of eight books on international affairs, including Smart Power: Toward a Prudent Foreign Policy for America (Palgrave Macmillan).

More by Ted Galen Carpenter

Indeed, even before the current economic crisis led to drastic budget slashing, spending levels in several countries (including such major allies as Germany and Italy) were closer to one percent of GDP than two. And matters have gotten much worse in the past two years. The $700 billion U.S. defense budget now accounts for an astonishing 74 percent of total spending by NATO members. The other 26 members of the alliance spend a mere $220 billion — despite having a collective economy larger than that of the United States.

Not only are budgets collapsing, but key weapons systems are being eliminated right and left. With the partial exceptions of Britain and France, the NATO militaries are both small and second rate. And given the projected spending trends in Paris and London, the British and French militaries will soon be joining their ranks.

This problem has been building since the end of the Cold War. As early as the First Persian Gulf conflict, U.S. military commanders were skeptical whether most troop contributions from NATO members added much military value. By the turn of the century, U.S. alarm at the eroding military capabilities of the alliance was evident, and U.S. officials were voicing warnings not unlike those Gates expressed in Brussels.

But Washington's threats to de-emphasize its commitment to NATO are probably as hollow as the alliance's military capabilities themselves. The Europeans have heard this all before. Burden-sharing controversies go back to the early 1950s, punctuated by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles's warning that the United States might have to conduct "an agonizing reappraisal" of its security commitment to Europe if the allies did not put forth a more serious effort. The Europeans suspected that threat was a bluff (which it was), and they probably suspect that the warning from Gates is merely the latest in a long, dreary series of empty threats.

But let's hope that this time they're wrong. Washington needs to ask what the purpose is of having allies. This country should not be simply a security partner collector — acquiring allies for the sake of having allies. The NATO "partners" now seem to fit that description. They bring less and less to the table in terms of security assets, and some of them, because of their own disputes with neighboring states, bring along the serious liability of potentially entangling the United States in unnecessary conflicts.

NATO has become a Potemkin alliance — an impressive façade, but little substance. There is a big difference between having capable security allies and having a collection of weak security dependents. It is long past time for Washington to conduct that "agonizing reappraisal."

General George C. Marshall And The Development Of A Professional Military Ethic

From FPRI:



by Josiah Bunting III

Vol. 16, No. 4

June 2011

Josiah Bunting III is President of The Harry Frank

Guggenheim Foundation in New York City. Earlier, he served

as Superintendent of his alma mater, the Virginia Military

Institute in Lexington, Virginia. Among his books is a

biography written for Arthur Schlesinger's presidential

series on Ulysses S. Grant. He is currently completing a

biography of George C. Marshall. This essay is a slightly

revised version of his presentation at a History Institute

on "Civilian Control of the Military and American

Democracy," held April 2-3, 2011, sponsored by FPRI's

Wachman Center, in association with the McCormick

Foundation's First Division Museum at Cantigny in Wheaton,


Available on the web and in pdf format at:

Audio and video of this presentation available at:



by Josiah Bunting III

I want to say, first of all, that you are the saints of your

profession. Most of you are high school teachers. This is

the most important period of education in the life of a

young person-13 to 17, as opposed to 18 to 22. This is where

you can really inculcate the fire, the love of learning, and

the habits that will last over a lifetime.

A common story, which most of us have heard, features a

prominent citizen's death in a small town, probably in the

American Heartland. He is in his mid-80s, perhaps even a

little bit older. His best friend gives the eulogy. When the

eulogist mentions that the man who has died served at

Normandy, there is a great deal of whispering in the church.

What are the people attending the funeral saying to each

other? Well, it's perfectly obvious-"I never knew that." The

extraordinary feature of that generation, with which we are

losing contact at the rate of about 1,200 a day, is that

they did what they did and didn't think, or talk much about

it. We are losing physical touch slowly with that


Alexis de Tocqueville noted in the 1830s, when visiting the

United States that the last signer of the Declaration had

died. This was the only Catholic signer, as it happens,

Charles Carroll of Maryland. And Tocqueville was struck by

the country's sense of loss of its "physical touch" with one

of the founders. And I think many of us feel that way about

"the greatest generation." Which raises the question: Why

are we, as amateur scholars of the military-military

buffs-fixated on two wars in particular, the Civil War and

the World War II? Americans know a great deal about these

two conflicts and very little about the Great War in

between, the war in France, in which America's participation

was quite brief, and in which U.S. casualties relative to

those of the Germans, the French and the British were quite

small. But you may remember, during the last six weeks of

the war in France, from September 26 until the armistice,

26,500 Americans were killed and 105,000 wounded. Our actual

experience of combat was brief, but extremely costly. And

yet, most people have forgotten World War I.

There are many links between the Civil War and the World War

II. We tend to forget them. I'm going to talk a little about

George Marshall within his generation. Marshall was born in

1880, the same year as Douglas MacArthur. He grew up in a

small town, a suburb of Pittsburgh, surrounded by veterans

of the Civil War. For that generation, that was their "great

generation." If you were 20 years old and had fought at

Chancellorsville or Antietam or Gettysburg, you were still a

relatively young person in the early 1890s. You'd be in your

middle or late 40s. So if you were a doctor, a lawyer, an

executive, a teacher in small town America, you were the

person that people looked up to. Yet, the great military

figures of that war were the people you aspired to be if you

had any interest in the military.

Some of the links between the two wars are quite charming

and unexpected. For example, Henry "Hap" Arnold, the chief

of the Air Corps in World War II, was decorating workers at

a B-29 factory in Wichita in 1943, and the foreman

introduced a woman in her 70s, saying, "This is our best

worker" The woman was Helen Longstreet, widow of the Civil

War solider James Longstreet. He had lived a long life and

married a young woman. Consequently, you still had people

serving in World War II who had those connections to the

Civil War

Many of you, if you are historians, know the word

"prosopography," an alluring subset of history concerned

with the study of groups united in some purpose or by some

chronology. The prosopography of Civil War leadership is

very interesting. The most important prosopography in our

history is that of the American founders. Henry Steele

Commager talked about periods of extraordinary fluorescence

in human leadership and human talent in history. He detailed

the Athens of Pericles, Elizabethan England, Renaissance

Italy, and particularly the American founders. How was it

that at that time in our history we had a number of people

born roughly between 1730 and 1750 who grew to be such

extraordinary human beings allied in a common purpose-people

of astounding versatility? Where did they come from?

Commager makes the point that once you clear away the debris

of great challenges bringing forth great leadership, you

have to look very seriously at the way people were raised

and how they were educated. What did they study? What did

they read? What were their parents' expectations for them?

They were not obsessed with SAT scores, there were no

Blackberries, no one cared if you went to Princeton or the

University of Virginia. You went up to your room at 7:00 at

night, and if you were John Adams, you read Plutarch, and

you were given no rewards for reading Plutarch. This is

essentially Commager's thesis.

The generation of George Marshall, the American generation

born between roughly 1880 and 1900 or 1905, was also such a

generation. The British historian Paul Johnson considers it

the "ablest in our history, almost as good as that of the

American founders." This is the generation bounded roughly

by 1880 extending all the way up to include the people that

led the United States during the Cold War, Walter Isaacson's

so-called "wise men."

Before discussing Marshall, in particular, I need to begin

with a personal story. In September of 1997, I was in the

Stonewall Jackson Memorial Hall at the Virginia Military

Institute. I was looking at the Corps of Cadets who were

sitting at rapt attention and listening very earnestly to a

speaker who was the president of the first class at that

time, or the senior class. The Corps was in a sulfurous

mood. After a nine-year progress through the courts, the

Supreme Court had ruled-by a vote of seven to one-that the

Institute must admit women. (I don't know how many of you

have been through situations in which your college or your

school which was all-women's or all-men's goes coed, but it

absolutely unhinges people. They become irrational and very

hard to manage. It is as though Western civilization has

been threatened itself.) In this case, the opposition to

female students had been very strong. This young man stood

up, looked at his classmates and friends and quoted


In the story, Marshall had been asked what he had learned

working for John Pershing in World War I. Marshall said the

most important was that if you were a subordinate officer,

when you were given an order with which you disagreed, you

must call yourself to account to execute that order with re-

doubled and visible enthusiasm and efficiency. That was

your obligation. This is what the British call "hard

cheese." This was a brave act by this young cadet. The issue

was fought; VMI had fought the good fight for a long time.

It had become a very emotional issue. But to see this young

man remind his fellow Cadets that they were to behave

themselves and do it properly, which they did, was an

interesting reflection on the influence and impact that

Marshall still had at that school.

George Marshall was born in 1880, and was an exact

contemporary of his imputed rival Douglas MacArthur.

Marshall, incidentally, did not do rivalry but subsequent

historians have imputed some kind of a rivalry there. His

provenance was Virginian. He was a collateral descendant of

Chief Justice John Marshall, and interestingly, a grand-

nephew of Charles Marshall, who was one of General Robert E.

Lee's young men. Lee traveled with a group of three or four

young men who looked after him, wrote his speeches, among

other things. Charles Marshall had the same relationship to

Lee essentially that Abraham Lincoln had with John Hay. It

is useful to remember, as I have said, that Marshall grew up

in the shadow of the Civil War. He knew many veterans of the

Civil War.

When he was a cadet himself at the Virginia Military

Institute, he was surrounded by veterans,. His early living

heroes were members of the returning National Guard unit

from western Pennsylvania coming back from Cuba, and later

on, from the Philippines during the Spanish-American War.

Watching this, we think, confirmed Marshall's early romantic

impulse to become a soldier. After commissioning, Marshall's

first assignment was in the Philippines where he was

responsible for the security of the island of Mindoro; a

place the size of Connecticut. He was a second lieutenant

and had just one associate. The war was over. He was dealing

with the insurrection. He was more or less alone. Mail came

every six weeks. Here is the school of responsibility and

self-reliance. No expectation of reward except General Lee's

famous general orders number nine. "It will take with you

the satisfaction that proceeds from the consciousness of

duty faithfully performed." That's it! No house in the

Hamptons, no BMW, your kids don't get into Princeton- none

of the appurtenances of success in this country. Instead,

"You did it, and you know you did it." A rapid sequence of

assignments, mainly to schools and National Guard units,

followed. On one occasion, as a first lieutenant, Marshall

took charge of an Army division in maneuvers and

successfully defeated the enemy aggressor. The general

watching all of this said that Marshall was a military

genius, and his reputation would one day threaten that of

Stonewall Jackson. (Imagine if you were a lieutenant and

somebody said that to you.)

In 1917, as Operations Officer of the First Division,

Marshall sailed to France. Before that, he had an experience

that made a profound impression and significantly influenced

him early in World War II. He was working as an aide to

General Franklin Bell at Governors Island in New York, First

U.S. Army Headquarters. Through the First U.S. Army, a

number of early units were sent over to France. Five or six

young lieutenants came by one day and asked to see General

Bell. Major Marshall said, "He's not available. May I help

you?" "Yes, sir, all of us have been married in the last

couple of weeks. We're hoping for an extra two days of

furlough before we sail for France to be with our young

wives." Permission was, of course, granted. Within four

months, all were dead. Marshall took from that the following

lesson: to commission young men who have been to what we

would call "high class Eastern colleges," and who were well-

born, simply because they were the beneficiaries of that

kind of privilege, and perhaps had had two or three weeks of

drilling with a rifle in Plattsburg, was not a good way to

train young officers. First of all, it was undemocratic, but

secondly, however brave, however ardent you might be, if you

were not properly trained and had not proven yourself as an

enlisted man, you should not be commissioned. And Marshall

believed that until he died. During the early days in World

War II, he and Henry Stimson, Secretary of War, had a long

argument about this. Stimson wanted to continue

commissioning people that way. Marshall, on the other hand,

insisted that the only people to receive commissions-aside

from medical doctors, chaplains, perhaps dentists-should be

West Point graduates or people who have been through Officer

Candidates School (OCS). And he had Omar Bradley, one of his

prot‚g‚s, went down to Fort Benning and established OCS.

Stimson was extremely angry. (A stout-hearted Republican,

Stimson was Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt from

age of 74 to 78. Roosevelt hired him because he was good,

and he had been Secretary of War 35 years earlier under

William Howard Taft. At the age of 51, Colonel Stimson

volunteered, and went to France as an artillery battery

commander. This gives you a sense of what he was like.)

In the mid-1950s, several volumes of a lengthy study of

Civil War leadership appeared by historian Kenneth Williams.

It was entitled "Lincoln Finds a General." Ulysses Grant was

not "brought east," as they used to say, until 1864. He was

then made commanding general of all Union forces, and

promoted to the grade of lieutenant general, our first to

have a regular appointment as a three-star general since

George Washington. My point is that it took President

Lincoln some three years to find, consider, hire and promote

Grant to his new eminence. This appointment soon led to the

accelerated promotion of men like William T. Sherman and

Philip Sheridan. Now hold that thought just for a moment.

In the summer of 1942, less than six months after Pearl

Harbor, the Army was preparing for what would be its first

offensive in the Atlantic theater, operation towards the

invasion of North Africa. The retinue of senior American

generals at the start of the war, on active service,

comprised Douglas MacArthur, Charles Marshall, Joseph

Stilwell, George Patton, Dwight Eisenhower, Omar Bradley,

Courtney Hodges, Walter Bedell Smith, Robert Eichelberger,

Walter Krueger, Mark Clark, Lucian Truscott, and a coterie

of colonels soon to command divisions, among them Albert

Wedemeyer, J. Lawton Collins, Matthew B. Ridgway, Forrest

Harding, James M. Gavin. They were all there in positions of

responsibility at the start of the war-that array of talent.

How were they, to borrow a phrase, all present at creation?

The Army of the 1920s and the '30s was what Marshall called

"a little sketchy thing." Its average strength was 130,000

soldiers and 13,000 officers. The latter were almost never

promoted. Among them, men who had fought in France and who

had become majors and lieutenant colonels were all reduced

in grade two ranks in 1919. In other words, you were a

lieutenant colonel, now you're a captain. Your pay was

suitably adjusted downward. Those who were commissioned

right after the Armistice were to park in the grade of first

lieutenant for between 15 and 18 years. They called their

insignia the "bar sinister." Yet, consider this. When the

West Point class of 1915 assembled in June 1940 for its 25th

reunion, only a month after the Germans had invaded the low

countries, only some five percent of that class had left the

Army. The equivalent for the West Point classes of 2000-2005

of people who have left of attrition is between 50 and 60

percent. I draw no conclusions, but it is interesting to

compare those numbers.

Those who had remained during this slack, arid, inter-war

period studied, learned and taught their profession. They

heard their calling. They learned each other. They had

leisure to think, to ponder, to write. Much of the time was

uninterrupted The culture of what we may call "visible

busyness" had not yet infected the way that we live-soldiers

and civilians both. Since there were so few commands

available, officers exploited unusual interests and

eccentricities. Joseph Stilwell had three tours of duty in

China; he learned Mandarin fluently. Eisenhower spent time

working for General Pershing on his memoirs, as well as

learning industrial management. Forrest Harding, working for

Marshall, put together an important compendium of World War

I tactical situations-infantry and battle. Wedemeyer spent

two years at the German Kriegsakademie. During Marshall's

tenure as assistant commandant of the infantry school from

1927-1932, about 1,200 students passed through the school.

Two hundred became general officers in the 1940s. Do the

math. If you were a captain and you were 27 or 28 years old

at the Infantry School in 1927, in 1943 you were the perfect

age to be a general in the Army. Napoleon said the perfect

age for a general was 40. Somebody reminded Grant of that,

and for one of the few times in his life, Grant smiled.

The important thing is that during this period in the 1920s

and '30s, this fallow period, powerful and ethical lessons

were taught. As a student at the Infantry School, you were

expected to stand up and argue your solution to tactical

problems no matter how far they deviated from the expected

norms and the conventional -the school solution. Originality

was encouraged and rewarded. Writing or arguing the

conventional, the safe answer, did not make people think you

were smart. It made them, Marshall in particular, think you

were dull. In making officer students better students and

scholars of the profession, he was teaching them essentially

an ethical lesson, Specifically, saying things to please

superiors, responding to the goad of ambition rather than

answering the calls and claims of truth will get you nowhere

in the Army as it should be. Marshall had understood that

the worst source of lessons in how to fight a German enemy,

if the enemy was to be Germany once again, were the lessons

presented by America's brief experience at the end of World

War I. Independent thinking-rather than mute allegiance to

doctrine-was the whole purpose of the Infantry School.

Students were expected to respond under pressure to

difficult tactical problems, and to explain their solutions

without notes. Professors were not allowed to use notes when

they lectured. They were to be self-reliant, and self-

reliance in leadership depends upon courage, which is

habitually called upon.

The ethical leadership of George Marshall provided many

lesson including: an officer never is to take the counsel of

his ambition. He became the intellectual tutor of Dwight

Eisenhower. You do not angle for assignments, for

promotions, or for choice positions. When the Secretary of

War asked Joseph Stilwell if he was ready to take up what

would become a mission impossible in China in 1942-the

winter of 1941-1942-Stilwell said simply, "I'll go where I'm

sent." That's the kind of answer that people like Stimson

and Marshall liked to hear. Marshall himself, during the

full length of the war, would not permit himself to receive

a decoration. He refused all honorary degrees and any

tributes, honorifics, or decorations. He told his aides that

if any was given him, they would be fired. When Admiral

Ernest King, Chief of Naval Operations, sought five-star

rank for the most senior officers of the Navy and the Army,

Marshall discouraged him abruptly. King wished to call

himself "arch admiral." That was his suggested term. This

provoked ill-concealed merriment among many people in

Washington. Marshall, of course, did not want to be called

"Marshall Marshall." There was some suggestion that we

should have field marshalls, as well as generals. Against

the advice of his aide-the young Dwight Eisenhower-Douglas

MacArthur allowed himself to be given the title "Field

Marshall" by the Philippines in 1937.

In his short biography of his father-in-law, Agricola (the

pro-consul in Britain in the first century B.C.), the Roman

historian Tacitus remarks that "To praise him for his acts

of courage was to insult him and to misunderstand him.

Choices and decisions which many men would labor over,

finally choosing the harder or more dangerous right over the

easier wrong, were to Agricola simple matters of execution.

That was the way he was. He had consciously made himself

that way." Like Agricola, Marshall, a Victorian, was very

much an artifact of his own conscious making and his life-

long superintendence. Selflessness was one of the things he

taught himself. In the Army, this selflessness meant doing

one's work without calculation of risk or reward.

There are many famous demonstrations of this selflessness. I

will highlight just two of them. One is interesting and in a

way, quite funny, and involves General Pershing and another

general, William Siebert. In the early fall of 1917,

Pershing was in France visiting the First Division. This was

the only division in France at that time and Pershing liked

to visit troops. If you were in the First Division, you

could expect that Pershing would come to see you often.

Pershing was a very formidable presence-stern, unbending,

very direct on duty. He concluded his visit, by asking to be

shown a demonstration called "battalion in the capture of a

trench." And watching the whole division in a review, he

concluded his visit by asking General Siebert to assemble

all of the officers of the division so he could speak to

them. He then said, "I have rarely seen a poorer

demonstration. I am ashamed of you. I am disappointed by the

division's efficiency, ashamed, and I don't think I've ever

seen anything worse in the U.S. Army." He looked around the

officers, stared at them, and then turned from the assembly

and began to walk toward his limousine. "Just a minute,

General. There's something that needs to be said, and if

nobody else will, I guess I'd better." "Who are you?" "Major

Marshall, sir, Operations Officer." "What do you have to say

for yourself?" "Nothing for myself, but you need to know the

reasons for our difficulties for what you have seen. This

division marched almost 30 miles overnight to give you your

review. We have done everything in our power with very

little to work with in a very brief amount of time."

Pershing resumes his walk to the limousine to hear Marshall

say as he's walking away from him, "I'm not finished." The

great man turns around, more of the same. Pershing makes a

lame, almost apologetic farewell and says something like,

"Well, we have our troubles, too, up at Headquarters," and

he leaves. All of the officers gather around Marshall.

General Siebert puts an arm around his shoulder. All are

certain he will be sent away immediately. On the contrary,

on his next visit, and every visit thereafter, Pershing

insisted that Marshall brief him before he did anything.

Five months later, he made him his senior aide, a position

that Marshall held for five years. Incidentally, Pershing

was a very great military commander, but he hated

administration. He couldn't stand being in the office and

going through papers. So, when Pershing was chief of staff,

Marshall was a lieutenant colonel, virtually every piece of

paper that went into Pershing's office came back with a

notation "LTC Marshall," meaning "Please George, do this for

me so I can go out and do other things." I say this only to

indicate that Marshall was receiving an extraordinarily high

level of political military education as Pershing's aide.

Another incident occurred on November 14, 1938. Marshall was

now a Brigadier General. He was the Deputy Chief of Staff,

very much the junior man in an audience which had been

assembled at the White House, about 14 senior people

including the Secretaries of War and Navy-to listen to

Franklin Roosevelt pronounce on an important element of the

country beginning to prepare itself for what might come. The

President had made an enthusiastic argument for a huge

increase in the production and procurement of what, in those

days, were called war planes. "We must have 10,000 planes as

soon as they can be manufactured. The planes will act as a

deterrent. They do not require hundreds of thousands of

soldiers. We will not use them unless someone attacks us.

Everyone OK with that?" Everyone nodded. "What about you,

George?" Marshall was sitting by himself down at the end of

a sofa. "Do you agree?" "No, Mr. President, I don't agree at

all." The same Pershing-like sequence was repeated.

Marshall's colleagues were shocked. As they left the Oval

Office together they said, "Nice knowing you. Have you ever

been to Guam?" Marshall later said that he was offended by

the President's "first naming" him. Marshall was quite a

starchy person. "I objected to this misrepresentation of our

intimacy. Within six months, FDR had asked Marshall, junior

to all of the obvious candidates, to be the head of the

Army. Now, he did not make a habit of boldly challenging

authority in ways which were discourteous, but he always

spoke out when he had the facts.

Marshall, as a representative of the military before

Congress-one of the important elements of military

leadership in those days and today-was to act as an advocate

for the administration's policies. Remember that in those

days there was no hoard of frisking deputy assistants. There

was Marshall, Admiral King, Mr. Stimson, Frank Knox, and the

President. That's how things operated. And they did pretty

well. He was always an austere presence at the witness

table, but calmly and pleasantly responsive to questions

from Senators and Congressmen. No aide was allowed to

accompany him. No papers were visible. He assumed his

questioners were American patriots and men as anxious to see

the war finished as quickly and cheaply as he was. He wore

almost no ribbons or decorations. Speaker of the House Sam

Rayburn noticed that Marshall habitually offered evidence

that hurt his own case when such evidence seemed demanded,

if you were completely honest. Later in his career, as

Secretary of State, making his presentation in behalf of the

plan for European recovery- the Marshall Plan--which is how

most people remember him, he stressed the huge costs and the

sacrifices that would be demanded of all, and indeed, the

uncertainty of success.

This was a period of extraordinary accomplishment in U.S.

foreign policy, the administration was strongly Democratic,

and the Congress, both Houses, was strongly Republican. By

now, Marshall's reputation for rectitude, uprightness, self-

mastery and sheer wisdom virtually guaranteed that the

things he advocated would receive an earnest and usually

favorable reception from Democrats and Republicans alike. By

executive order in March, 1942, Marshall was made principal

advisor to the President on matters of strategy. His

position vis-…-vis the President was the same as Admiral

King's was for the Navy. There was a much smaller

scaffolding of Defense Department so-called "defense

intellectuals" than today. Incidentally, Marshall, according

to Peter Drucker, was the greatest "picker of men" in

American history. His ability to identify people of talent

when they were very young and move them ahead so that they

would be in important positions when the time came for their

services was unsurpassed.

In any community of persons brought together for some common

purpose-schools and colleges, as well as military

organizations-leaders emerge. By far the most potent means

of creating an ethical environment is the power and

authority of one's own example. Marshall's was an example

which represented the standards of the Army-an army

appropriate to an American Democracy, as it should be. He

was austere, committed to doing the mission with the minimum

of cost necessary to complete it, and in which advancement

within was to be achieved only by demonstrated mastery of

duty. Marshall was to the Army of 1945 what Grant had been

to the Union Army and the Duke of Wellington had been to the

British Army. He was its exemplar, and he was known and

admired as such.

It's interesting that of all of the great World War II

figures, Marshall is the one least well-remembered. In fact,

when David McCullough, the most popular and excellent

historian of our time, ran a seminar at Dartmouth College,

not a single member of the seminar he taught could identify

George Marshall. Mercy.


Copyright Foreign Policy Research Institute


Pakistani Taliban Send Husband And Wife Suicide Bomber Pair To Slaughter Police

From Jihad Watch:

Romance: you're doing it wrong -- Pakistani Taliban send husband-wife suicide bomber pair to slaughter police

If they had changed their minds, it would've been a Taliban couples' retreat. "Pakistan Taliban use husband, wife suicide bombers," by Ishtiaq Mahsud for the Associated Press, June 26 (thanks to JCB):

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan – The Pakistani Taliban said Sunday the group had sent a husband and wife suicide squad to carry out an attack on a police station in northwestern Pakistan that killed 10 people, a rare instance of militants using a woman as a bomber.

The pair entered the police station in Kolachi on Saturday and said they were there to lodge a complaint, said Imtiaz Shah, a senior police official. Once inside, the two attacked with grenades and machine guns, triggering a five-hour standoff with police.

Both attackers, including the woman wearing an all-covering robe known as a burqa, eventually blew themselves up. They killed eight police officers and two civilians, said Mohammad Hussain, another police official.

"This shows how much we hate Pakistani security institutions," Pakistani Taliban spokesman Ahsanullah Ahsan told The Associated Press by telephone from an undisclosed location.

Ahsan claimed it was the first time the militant group had used a female suicide bomber.

However, Pakistani officials said a female suicide bomber wearing a burqa attacked a World Food Program food distribution center in northwestern Pakistan late last year, killing 45 people.

Perhaps that wound up being bad for business, and something they'd rather not remind people of.

The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for that attack in Khar, the main city in the Bajur tribal area, but never claimed it was carried out by a female bomber. Still, that was believed to be the group's first attack by a female suicide bomber.

Male suicide bombers often don the burqa as a disguise. In 2007, officials initially claimed Pakistan's first female suicide bomber had killed 14 people in the northwest town of Bannu. But the attacker was later identified as a man.

Islamic militants in Iraq have used female suicide bombers several times because women in their all-covering robes are seen as able to pass more easily through security. Male security officers are often hesitant to search women....

Posted by Marisol on June 26, 2011 8:18 AM

Where Is The Outrage?! After Earlier Failure, Jihadists Succeed In Using Eight-Year-Old Girl To Carry Remote-Controlled Bomb To Police, Killing Her

From Jihad Watch:

Where is the outrage? After earlier failure, jihadists succeed in using eight-year-old girl to carry remote-controlled bomb to police, killing her

The world breathed a sigh of relief that Pakistani jihadists had failed in their attempt to use nine-year-old Sohana Jawed to carry a bomb in an attack that would have killed her. Now, Afghan jihadists tried, and this time, it worked. Perhaps this was a copycat attack; in any event, Sohana's case is no longer an anomaly, but part of the jihadist playbook in the region.

Where is the outrage? As with yesterday's hospital bombing -- which reportedly hit a maternity ward the hardest -- all of Afghanistan, and indeed all of the Muslim world ought to be furious. If there ever were a time for righteous indignation, this would be it. But if protests over the Muhammad cartoons and the Florida Qur'an burning have shown us the ferocity of anger that something said to be "against Islam" can provoke, the relative silence in the face of these acts is deafening.

"Afghanistan: Eight-year-old girl 'used in attack'," from BBC News, June 26:

An eight-year-old girl has been killed after insurgents used her in a bomb attack on police in southern Afghanistan, the government has said.

The interior ministry said insurgents gave the girl a package and told her to take it to a police vehicle, detonating it as she approached.

No-one else was killed in the explosion, in Uruzgan province.

The incident came a day after an attack on a hospital which killed at least 38 people in the east of the country.

Dozens were injured. Elderly people, pregnant women and children were said to be among the casualties.

'No respect'

A statement by the ministry described the Uruzgan incident as a "crime and a shameful act".

The area where the alleged incident happened is very remote, and it was not possible to independently verify the reports.

"The child, pure-hearted and in good faith, took the bag and moved towards the police vehicle," it said.

"As she got close to the police vehicle, the enemy detonated the bomb by remote control, killing the innocent child."

The governor of Char Cheno district, where the attack took place, told the BBC the girl was from the nearest village.

She was told nothing would happen to her, he said, adding that the perpetrators had "no boundary, no respect for anything".

Correspondents say insurgents have recruited both adult women and recently male children to carry out suicide attacks, though the Taliban denies recruiting children.

Posted by Marisol on June 26, 2011 8:33 AM

Taliban Burqa-Brigade Attempted Prison Break In Northwestern Pakistan

From Jihad Watch:

Taliban burqa-brigade attempted prison break in northwestern Pakistan

It appears the two exploding lovebirds in this story, who went into the police station under the pretense of filing a report ("war is deceit," Muhammad said) were but the leading edge of a broader attack including men disguised in burqas who were "prepared for days of siege and hostage-taking" to obtain the release of jihadists held in the prison there.

This time, they failed. "Burqa-clad Taliban kill 10 police in Pakistan siege," from Agence France-Presse, June 26 (thanks to Zulu):

PESHAWAR: At least 10 policemen were killed Saturday when Taliban militants in suicide vests, some of them clad in burqas, laid siege to a police station in northwest Pakistan, officials said.

“Police have taken the control of the police station and 10 of our policemen were martyred in the attack and six attackers were killed,” Mian Iftikhar Hussain, information minister of northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, told AFP.

Militants armed with guns and hand grenades had attacked Kolachi police station near the border with South Waziristan tribal district and taken a group of policemen hostage. Hussain said the burqa-clad attackers had hoped to secure the release of other militants.

“The attackers had come prepared for days of siege and hostage-taking to secure the release of other militants,” Hussain told AFP.

“When our armoured car entered the police station two suicide bombers blew themselves up and a third suicide bomber was killed by a rocket,” Hussain said.

“Police have found the bodies of three militants and the heads of three suicide bombers,” Hussain said, adding that half of the police station building had been destroyed and 11 policemen wounded.

Regional police chief Imtiaz Shah told AFP there was one woman among the suicide bombers. Shah said the siege began when attackers dressed in burqas pulled out guns at the station’s main gate and killed policemen deployed there.

The militants then damaged the boundary wall with hand grenades, enabling more rebels to follow them into the building.

About 17 policemen were on duty at the time and were taken hostage by the militants once they ran out of ammunition, the police chief said.

As security forces were called to the scene and cordoned off the police station, two of the attackers detonated their suicide vests, while three others were shot dead by security forces, Shah said.

District police chief Mohammad Hussain Khan said it was likely the attackers had come from the nearby lawless tribal belt.

Television footage showed thick black smoke billowing from the roof of the fortress-like police station and security forces and police firing at militants.

Taliban spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan in a telephone call to AFP claimed responsibility, saying it was the latest in a series of attacks to avenge the killing of Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden.

“We sent one male and one female suicide bomber to participate in the attack, because we want to liberate our people from the slavery of America,” Ehsan said....

Posted by Marisol on June 26, 2011 9:09 AM

Wife Of Seattle Jihad Mass-Murder Plotter: He Just Good Muslim. Perfect Muslim. He Pray Five Times A Day.

From Jihad Watch:

Wife of Seattle jihad mass-murder plotter: "He just good Muslim. Perfect Muslim. He pray five times a day."

Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif was arrested for a jihad plot against a Seattle military recruiting station. His niqabbed first wife says he was a pious Muslim who prayed five times a day.

If the mainstream media had any interest in anything resembling actual journalism, there would be stories all over about why jihad terror plotters are always observant and knowledgeable Muslims. Instead of the inevitable handwringing over a non-existent "backlash," journalists should be challenging the leaders of the local mosque where Abdul-Latif's wife says he met fellow jihad mass-murder plotter Walli Mujahidh, asking them what exactly is being taught there.

The interview with Abdul-Latif's wife starts three minutes into the clip, after the segment with Peter King.

Video thanks to Peter.

Posted by Robert on June 26, 2011 11:57 AM