Category Archives: Military

Draft America’s Daughters Act will require millions of women to sign up for draft

Be careful what you wish for.

Feminists agitate for gender “equality”. And so, heeding their call, the Obama administration decided to open all U.S. military combat roles to women, including the elite Navy SEALS and Army Rangers.

Last December 3, Defense Secretary Ash Carter made that announcement, effective in the new year, which means 2016. To that end, Carter ordered the Marines and Army, along with the other service branches, to open about 225,000 combat jobs to women candidates – the last remaining occupational specialties that had barred female troops.

In so doing, Carter had rejected a request from the Marine Corps for a partial exception so as to keep the infantry, machine gunner, and fire support reconnaissance men-only. Carter said no: “We are a joint force, and I have decided to make a decision which applies to the entire force.” (See “Obama opening combat to women means they will need to register for Selective Service“)

Since Carter’s announcement, U.S. military services have been submitting plans for incorporating women into all of their ranks, a process that could take months or years.

Now, the expected consequence of Obama’s decision is here.

Yesterday, a bill was introduced in Congress which would require women to register for the draft.

Army intelligence analyst Spc Brittany Gordon, 24, was killed by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan in Oct. 2012

Army intelligence analyst Spc Brittany Gordon, 24, was killed by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan in Oct. 2012

Travis J. Tritten reports for Stars and Stripes, Feb. 4, 2016, that two House Republicans introduced a bill Thursday requiring eligible women in the United States to sign up for the military draft.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a Marine veteran, and Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Minn., a retired Navy SEAL, filed the Draft American’s Daughters Act to stoke debate over the military’s historic move to fully integrate female troops into all combat roles. If the bill is passed, women from 18-26 years old would for the first time have to join men in registering with the Selective Service program and potentially be forced to fight in future wars.

“This is a very important issue that touches the heart of every family in America, and I believe we need to have an open and honest discussion about it,” Zinke said.

Hunter and Zinke maintain that the Obama administration made the policy change despite research and reservations from the Marine Corps and special operations community, and without adequate debate among lawmakers. 

Obama as king

Hunter said in a statement: “If this administration wants to send 18, 20-year-old women into combat, to serve and fight on the front lines, then the American people deserve to have this discussion through their elected representatives.” For his part, Zinke said in a statement: “My daughter is a damn good Navy diver. I know women play an invaluable role in war. Many times women can gain access to strategic sites that men never could. However, this administration’s plan to force all front-line combat and Special Forces to integrate women into their units is reckless and dangerous.”

Two days before the bill was introduced, on Feb. 2, Marine Commandant Gen. Robert Neller and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley had testified to the Senate that they believe there no longer should be an exemption in the draft for half of the country’s population now that the military is all inclusive.

The Marines completed a study last summer that found women get injured more often and perform below males in combat. During an oversight hearing in the Senate on Tuesday, lawmakers repeatedly referenced the study and said they are worried the military could lower standards to accommodate more women in combat occupational specialties.

Zinke said the decision now means the country must contemplate changes to the draft. The Draft America’s Daughters Act will require millions of women to register beginning 90 days after it is signed into law. 

Men, who historically filled combat roles, are required to register with Selective Service when they turn 18 years old in case a draft is again needed. Women have been excluded from the Selective Service System, a decision that was upheld by a 1981 Supreme Court ruling that said as long as women weren’t allowed in combat units, they shouldn’t be subjected to it.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Rep. Duncan Hunter said in an interview that the change in policy “is a change to over 200 years of warfare in the United States.” Hunter urges his fellow lawmakers to ask themselves: “Do I think we have come far enough that my daughter should be drafted?”

Hunter said he will try to bring his bill to the floor so all members of Congress will have to vote on the issue because “This should involve every member of Congress. This isn’t a military thing, it’s a family thing, it’s a cultural thing.”

Advocates for women in combat roles dismiss the bill, saying that requiring women to register wouldn’t have much practical effect, as a draft hasn’t been used since the Vietnam War.

The issue of registration for women could become a campaign issue, depending how far the bill progresses.

On Wednesday at a townhall meeting, Hillary Clinton expressed her concern that the policy change could change the definition of an all-volunteer force. She said she wasn’t sure all women should register for the draft on the grounds that “I have a hard time imagining the kind of national emergency that would require the use of the Selective Service System.”

See also Obama’s other acts to socially re-engineering the U.S. military:

H/t FOTM‘s MomOfIV

~Eowyn

Wow!

This photograph was taken by a soldier in Afghanistan during a rescue mission. The pilot is a PA National guardsman whose regular job is an EMT helicopter pilot.

US helicopter in Afghanistan

How many pilots do you know can set the back end of a helicopter down on a shack on a steep mountain cliff, while soldiers load wounded comrades?

H/t Joseph Karoki

~Eowyn

Iran gives medals for capture of U.S. Navy soldiers

Of course they did.

iran-sailor-hostages

Earlier this month Iran captured U.S. Navy soldiers in their boats in the Persian Gulf. Iran released our soldiers amidst praise from John “I served time in Vietnam” Kerry. He said, “we can all imagine how a similar situation might have played out three or four years ago.”

Kerry & Hanoi Jane

Reuter’s reported yesterday that Iran’s supreme leader awarded medals to navy commanders for capturing U.S. sailors who entered Iranian territorial waters, Iran’s state media said on Sunday.

Apparently the U.S. giving Iran the power to make nuclear weapons and $1 BILLION isn’t enough to make them happy with us.

ayatollah-ali-khamenei-smile

Even after that, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said Iran should remain wary of its arch-enemy the U.S. The crazed leader awarded the Fath (Victory) medal to the head of the navy of the Revolutionary Guards and four commanders involved in the seizure of two U.S. Navy boats.

Iran freed the ten U.S. sailors on Jan. 13, a day after detaining them aboard the two U.S. Navy patrol boats in the Gulf, bringing a swift end to an incident that had rattled nerves shortly before the expected implementation of the nuclear accord with world powers. The Revolutionary Guardss said it had determined the patrol boats had entered Iranian territorial waters by mistake.

Read the rest of the whole story here.

DCG

Newly-declassified report shows U.S. invaded Iraq with no hard evidence of WMDs

The Iraq War was a protracted armed conflict that began with the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003, 1½ years after the traumatic 9/11 attacks, by a U.S.-led coalition.

The invasion began with a “shock and awe” bombing campaign. Iraqi forces were quickly overwhelmed as U.S. forces swept through the country. The invasion led to the collapse of the Ba’athist government of Saddam Hussein, who was captured in December 2003 and executed by a military court three years later.

But the war continued for much of the next decade as an insurgency emerged to oppose the occupying forces and the post-invasion Iraqi government. Worse still, Saddam’s former military officers morphed into ISIS, which became the Islamic State. (See Blowback: ISIS leaders are former officers of Saddam Hussein’s army”) Although the United States officially withdrew from Iraq in 2011, we became re-involved in 2014 as the Iraqi government proved itself unable to cope with ISIS.

Altogether, the Iraq War exacted a toll of hundreds of thousands in casualties:

  • An estimated 151,000 to 600,000 Iraqis were killed in the first 3–4 years of conflict.
  • 6,045 Americans were killed: 4,491 soldiers; 1,554 contractors. Additionally, 76,106 Americans were wounded: 32,226 soldiers; 43,880 contractors.

The Iraq War cost the U.S. government more than $845 billion — $720 million a day, if one takes into account the long-term health care for veterans, interest on debt and replacement of military hardware, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance professor Linda Bilmes.  

The George W. Bush administration based its rationale for war principally on the assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) — yellow-cake uranium poison gas, biological weapons — and that Saddam’s government posed an immediate threat to the United States and its coalition allies. Saddam was also accused of of harboring and supporting al-Qaeda, the terrorist group identified as the instigator of 9/11.

The rationale for the Iraq War has since been discredited. But a newly-declassified report to the then-Joint Chiefs of Staff provides even more evidence that the Bush administration went to war with, at best, flimsy evidence of Iraq’s WMDs — a war in which 6,045 Americans lost their lives.

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense 2001-2006

John Walcott, adjunct professor in the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, reports for Politico, Jan. 24, 2016, that on September 9, 2002, as the Bush administration began its public-opinion campaign for an invasion of Iraq, a classified report from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld landed on the desk of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), Air Force General Richard Myers.

The report began with these words:

“Please take a look at this material as to what we don’t know about WMD. It is big.”

The report was an inventory of what U.S. intelligence didn’t know about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The report admitted that what the U.S. didn’t know about Iraq’s WMD program ranged from 0% to about 75%While the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iraq was at the heart of the administration’s case for war, the JCS report conceded that:

“Our knowledge of the Iraqi (nuclear) weapons program is based largely—perhaps 90%—on analysis of imprecise intelligence.”

Myers already knew about the report because the Joint Staff’s director for intelligence had prepared it. Clearly, Rumsfeld’s urgent tone conveyed how seriously he viewed the report’s potential to undermine the Bush administration’s case for war.

But neither Rumsfeld nor Myers shared the 8-page report with key members of the administration such as then-Secretary of State Colin Powell or top officials at the CIA, according to multiple sources at the State Department, White House and CIA who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity. Instead, the report disappeared, and with it a potentially powerful counter-narrative to the administration’s argument that Saddam Hussein’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons posed a grave threat to the U.S. and its allies, which was beginning to gain traction in major news outlets, led by the New York Times.

A month after Rumsfeld’s note to Myers, on October 7, 2002, Bush appeared at a VFW hall in Cincinnati, where he declared without reservation: Iraq “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.” In February 2003, Powell appeared before the UN General Assembly to make the administration’s case, with CIA Director George Tenet sitting behind him:

“My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What were giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.

Below are screenshots of the 8-page report, preceded by Rumsfeld’s memo to Myers, and Director for Intelligence Major Gen. Glen Shaffer’s memo to the JCS (source: Politico). I supplied the red-color emphasis.

Iraq report Rumsfeld memo to MyersIraq report Rumsfeld memo to Myers1Iraq WMD1Iraq WMD2Iraq WMD3Iraq WMD4Iraq WMD5Iraq WMD6Iraq WMD7Iraq WMD8

The Bush administration invaded Iraq — a war that cost the lives of 6,045 Americans and over $845 billion — with the justification that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction and was an imminent threat to U.S. security, although both the U.S. Defense Secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff knew we had only flimsy hard evidence — that U.S. intelligence depended “heavily on analytic assumptions and judgment rather than hard evidence” and that “We don’t know with any precision how much we don’t know.”

Let that thought sink in . . . .

Meanwhile, the Neo-con warmongers in Congress are fast-tracking a resolution to give Obama unlimited war-making powers — unrestricted in time or geography.

See:

~Eowyn

Shocker, not: Hillary’s team copied intel off top-secret server to email

At this point, I really don’t know what it is going to take to put this womyn behind bars.

Hillary For Prison 2016

The State Department cannot find emails of Clinton IT staffer Bryan Pagliano. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she does not need to apologize for using a private email account and server while at the State Department because “what I did was allowed.” Hillary Clinton’s private server contained information from 5 US spy agencies. Hillary Clinton deleted half of emails from personal account used to conduct business as secretary of state.

And an  intelligence community review reaffirmed that two classified emails were indeed “top secret” when they hit Hillary Clinton’s unsecured personal server despite a challenge to that designation by the State Department.

Hillary Clinton what difference does it make

Now comes news that the FBI is investigating whether members of Hillary Clinton’s inner circle “cut and pasted” material from the government’s classified network so that it could be sent to her private e-mail address.

The New York Post reports that Clinton and her top aides had access to a Pentagon-run classified network that goes up to the Secret level, as well as a separate system used for Top Secret communications.

The two systems — the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) and Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS) — are not connected to the unclassified system, known as the Non-Classified Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNet). You cannot e-mail from one system to the other, though you can use NIPRNet to send ­e-mails outside the government.

And what do ya know: Somehow, highly classified information from SIPRNet, as well as even the super-secure JWICS, jumped from those closed systems to the open system and turned up in at least 1,340 of Clinton’s home e-mails — including several the CIA earlier this month flagged as containing ultra-secret Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Programs, a subset of SCI.

SAP includes “dark projects,” such as drone operations, while SCI protects intelligence sources and methods.

“It takes a very conscious effort to move a classified e-mail or cable from the classified systems over to the unsecured open system and then send it to Hillary Clinton’s personal e-mail account,” said Raymond Fournier, a veteran Diplomatic Security Service special agent. “That’s no less than a two-conscious-step process.”

He says it’s clear from some of the classified e-mails made public that someone on Clinton’s staff essentially “cut and pasted” content from classified cables into the messages sent to her. The classified markings are gone, but the content is classified at the highest levels — and so sensitive in nature that “it would have been obvious to Clinton.” Most likely the information was, in turn, e-mailed to her via NIPRNet.

FBI agents are zeroing in on three of Clinton’s top department aides. Most of the Clinton e-mails deemed classified by intelligence agency reviewers were sent to her by her chief of staff Cheryl Mills or deputy chiefs Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan.

Both of these womyn are untouchable...

Both of these womyn are untouchable…

In one e-mail, Clinton pressured Sullivan to declassify cabled remarks by a foreign leader. “Just e-mail it,” Clinton snapped, to which Sullivan replied: “Trust me, I share your exasperation. But until ops converts it to the unclassified e-mail system, there is no physical way for me to e-mail it.”

Read all the details here.

I just can’t take reading these reports about Hillary any more, they raise my blood pressure! NOTHING is being done to her and it’s infuriating. Sigh…

DCG

Mitch McConnell fast-tracks authorization to give Obama unlimited war powers

Yesterday, during a visit to ISIS-friendly Turkey, VPOS Joe Biden said that if a political solution can’t be reached, the U.S. is prepared to use military force to “take out” ISIS or Islamic State (IS) and so end the civil war in Syria. The Obama administration has been carrying out “precision air strikes” on Islamic State (IS), but to no avail. (Source: Bloomberg)

Biden could make that promise because warmongers in Congress are paving the way to give Obama (and future presidents) unlimited war powers with no expiration date.

In 1973, to prevent “future Vietnams,” Congress passed the War Powers Act over the veto of then-Pres. Richard Nixon, to restrain the president’s ability to commit U.S. forces overseas by requiring the executive branch to first consult with and report to Congress. Although the Act was generally resisted or ignored by subsequent presidents, who regarded it as an unconstitutional usurpation of their executive authority, the Act nevertheless acted as a constraint.

In 2014, Obama did exactly that by declaring war against the Islamic State — a move considered by many legal scholars and even many members of Congress as illegal and unconstitutional. As Mike Krieger recounts for Liberty Blitzkrieg

President Obama’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.

Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written.

This became clear when White House officials briefed reporters before Mr. Obama’s speech to the nation on Wednesday evening. They said a war against ISIS was justified by Congress’s authorization of force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that no new approval was needed.

But the 2001 authorization for the use of military force does not apply here. That resolution — scaled back from what Mr. Bush initially wanted — extended only to nations and organizations that “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the 9/11 attacks.

Not only was ISIS created long after 2001, but Al Qaeda publicly disavowed it earlier this year. It is Al Qaeda’s competitor, not its affiliate….

[Obama’s] refusal even to ask the Justice Department to provide a formal legal pretext for the war on ISIS is astonishing.

Now, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) is fast-tracking an authorization that would give Obama unlimited war-making powers.

Mitch McConnell & Lindsey Graham

Sarah Mimms and Alex Rogers report for NationalJournal that late Wednesday (Jan. 20) night, McConnell surprised many members of Congress by fast-tracking a broad authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) authored by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

“Fast-tracking” refers to “Rule XIV” — setting up authorization for a future vote without putting the proposed AUMF on the Senate calendar, which means a vote can come at any time, or not at all.

McConnell and Graham’s AUMF would give the president unlimited war powers, placing no restrictions on the deployment of ground troops, or on time or geography. Even Obama’s claim of legal authority to wage war against ISIS does not allow for “enduring offensive ground combat operations,” nor is it unlimited in time, but would have expired three years after reenactment, unless reauthorized.

Mc­Con­nell’s spokes­man, Don Stewart, admitted in an email on Thursday that the new AUMF will not “tie the president’s hands”. 

McConnell’s move is an about-face, contradicting what he himself had told reporters last month: “It’s clear the pres­id­ent does not have a strategy in place, so it would be hard to fig­ure out how to au­thor­ize a non-strategy.”

McConnell’s res­ol­u­tion already has four Re­pub­lic­an co­spon­sors: Sens. Lind­sey Gra­ham, Daniel Coats, Joni Ernst, and Or­rin Hatch.

Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Chair­man Bob Cork­er (R-TN), while saying that there is still a “wide di­versity” of opin­ions on the is­sue, nevertheless argues with the Obama administration that no new AUMF is even needed. He said of McConnell’s new resolution, “I don’t think it changes any­thing [because] I’m in the same place that I’ve been—and that is I be­lieve the ad­min­is­tra­tion has the au­thor­ity to do what they’re do­ing.”

A Democrat warmonger, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who has ag­gress­ively ad­voc­ated for an AUMF, was thrilled Thursday that the Sen­ate could soon take up McConnell’s resolution. He argued that Obama’s war against Islamic State is illegal, “I don’t think there’s a leg­al jus­ti­fic­a­tion for it. And I think the greatest danger we end up do­ing is al­low­ing the pres­id­ent to wage a war without Con­gress weigh­ing in.”

Mc­Con­nell’s proposed authorization for the use of military force will not “tie the president’s hands”. 

I cannot begin to emphasize how dangerous this new AUMF is, and what a threat to liberty McConnell et al. are.

~Eowyn

No joke: Muslim men really do rape goats

We joke about Muslim men having sex with goats.

It turns out it’s not a joke.

The video below was uploaded to Daily Motion on Nov. 28, 2013, with a description in French — that a U.S. military surveillance helicopter surveying a village in Afghanistan captured infrared camera footage of Afghan men sodomizing a poor goat.

WARNING: Graphic!

Here’s a screenshot at the 2:41 mark in the video, of a man sodomizing a goat while two other men stand nearby:

Afghan men sodomize goat

See also:

~Eowyn