In case you were wondering, according to the Pentagon, American troops would be killed far less frequently if only they would better understand the religious sensitivities of Afghan forces.
If you’re an ardent supporter of American media, then you probably missed the news that the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan rose to 2,000 this past weekend.
This of course, would have been the lead story on every news outlet in America had it occurred between the years 2000 and 2008.
But this is now Obama’s war, and there should be no reporting of significant milestones because … well … because he has put an end to these unjust wars. And also, he’s the first black President. Or something.
Regardless, here is the grim news as reported by the Huffington Post:
There is a debate as to whether or not this story holds true. Were our soldiers killed as a result of a misunderstanding, or was it an attack from within? Regardless of the motive, the 2,000th American soldier has died in Afghanistan.
Now, we know our readers are pretty good with math unlike liberals in the media, so we have a little mathematical riddle for you – If 630 U.S. troops were killed in 8 years during the war in Afghanistan under Bush, and 2,000 total troops have died during the entire length of that war, how many casualties have occurred under President Obama?
Here’s an even more astounding thing to ponder – the Obama administration is now blaming the ‘friendly fire’ attacks that have killed U.S. soldiers this year on troops that are not sensitive enough to the religion of Islam.
In other words, they had it coming.
Afghan security forces, our supposed allies, are slaughtering American troops. Thirty-three soldiers have been killed by “green on blue” attacks this year alone. The situation is so bad that the training of Afghan forces has been temporarily suspended.
How has the Pentagon responded?
By blaming our troops.
Top officials believe culturally offensive behavior is the motivation behind the killings, so it’s stepped up Islamic sensitivity training for our troops.
If you don’t want to be shot in the back by your Afghan training partners, the Pentagon advises, don’t offend their religious sensibilities. Don’t kick your feet up on a table, for instance, and never ask to see a picture of their wives and kids. “There’s a percentage [of attacks] which are cultural affronts,” Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said in a recent interview. Dempsey echoes the concerns of Gen. Sher Mohammad Karimi, the Afghan National Army’s chief of staff, who earlier this month argued both sides need to do more to “teach” foreign troops Islamic traditions and values to reduce the chance of violent reactions to cultural slights. “It is our duty to teach this to them. Our indifference about these issues causes the incident,” he said.
Of course, this fits in quite well with the President’s view that when it comes to soldiers and diplomats being killed abroad, everyone is to blame for their deaths except for the people who actually pull the trigger.
When do you suppose the Obama administration will start training Afghan troops to respect American traditions and values, and start blaming violence in the Middle East on those who have no values?
If they were illegal aliens, felons, or dead people, the Obama campaign would surely be suing to make early in-person voting a year-round concept.
But this is the military, and while Team Obama wants you to think they’re concerned about laws that suppress the vote of everyone, the reality is they’re only concerned about suppressing the vote – of Democrat supporters.
How else to explain a lawsuit that fights the privilege of military members to earn three extra days to cast an early in-person vote in the state of Ohio?
President Barack Obama, along with many Democrats, likes to say that, while they may disagree with the GOP on many issues related to national security, they absolutely share their admiration and dedication to members of our armed forces. Obama, in particular, enjoys being seen visiting troops and having photos taken with members of our military. So, why is his campaign and the Democrat party suing to restrict their ability to vote in the upcoming election?
On July 17th, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state’s law governing voting by members of the military. Their suit said that part of the law is “arbitrary” with “no discernible rational basis.”
Currently, Ohio allows the public to vote early in-person up until the Friday before the election. Members of the military are given three extra days to do so. While the Democrats may see this as “arbitrary” and having “no discernible rational basis,” I think it is entirely reasonable given the demands on servicemen and women’s time and their obligations to their sworn duty.
Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that the military typically votes Republican, or that veterans have already shown overwhelming support for Mitt Romney.
Remember when President Bush and Vice-President Cheney were constantly being portrayed by the left as blood-thirsty war criminals? Remember when the media was counting off U.S. military deaths during the Iraq and Afghan wars as some sort of celebratory testament as to how terrible Bush and Cheney were?
So I ask you, why is the man who has conducted military operations in four countries – two of which he conducted without congressional authorization (Libya and Central Africa) – and a man who has now been Commander-in-Chief while overseeing 70% of the military deaths in the Afghan War, currently getting a free pass while he polishes up his little Nobel Peace Prize back at the White House?
Via CNS News:
Of the 1,912 U.S. military personnel who have died in the now nearly 11-year-long war in Afghanistan, 1,343 have died since President Barack Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009.
Seventy percent of the Afghan War casualties have happened on Obama’s watch…
… The three years of the Obama have been the three deadliest for U.S. forces in Afghanistan. In 2009, 303 U.S. service members perished there. In 2010, 497 did. In 2011, 399 U.S. military personnel died in Afghanistan.
Obama has also presided over the top five deadliest months of the war, which include: August 2011, when there were 71 deaths; July 2010, when there were 65 deaths; June 2010, when there were 60 deaths; October 2009, when there were 58 deaths; and August 2010, when there were 55 deaths.
Where is Cindy Sheehan? Where are the Code Pinkos?
I know, I know, much like the economy, the war was much worse than anyone could have ever expected. And President Obama actually prevented many more deaths through his foreign policy actions.
Pathetic. Hold the man accountable.
In 2006, Air Force Staff Sgt. Colleen Bushnell, retired after a nine-year military career which garnered her multiple job performance awards. The retirement was prompted by service-related incidents in 2004 and 2005 that led to a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.
The injuries were not the type typically imagined by the general public when reading about military members hurt during their tour of duty – in fact, they weren’t even inflicted by the enemy.
A Times Union report explains:
Bushnell’s wounds resulted not from enemy action, but from sexual assaults she says were perpetrated by senior personnel around Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. An officer raped her in 2004 and a female officer sexually assaulted her the following year, she said.
Post-retirement was an extremely difficult time for Bushnell. We’ve covered her battle with Fox News’ Liz Trotta here, which reveals some facts surrounding her case, and you can find more details about her personal story in a self-authored blog post here.
But, being a battler by nature, Bushnell has rebounded to become a leading voice for women in the military, veterans, and for those suffering from sexual assaults.
Here is an excerpt from the excellent Times Union report:
Over the past several months, Bushnell has emerged as an advocate for Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans and victims of military sexual trauma. She’s fighting for changes in how the Pentagon handles sexual assault complaints, which officially totaled 3,192 in 2011. According to the Pentagon, however, most incidents weren’t reported, and the real number was higher than 19,000. More than a third of those assaults involved male victims, who are less likely to report problems, according to reports.
Women account for more than 15 percent of Army ranks and 20 percent of Air Force members. Department of Defense data show 20 percent of all servicewomen experience rape, sexual assault or sexual harassment.
Bushnell uses media skills she learned as an Air Force public affairs specialist to tell others what she went through and to connect victims with information that can help them heal. This summer, she will embark on a national awareness campaign. She is one of five veterans who will participate in the Long Ride Home Project, a cross-country bicycle trip intended to assist returning veterans.
The vets will pedal 4,200 miles from Washington state to Washington, D.C., over 90 days. The riders hope to heal themselves while drawing attention to Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who are struggling to readjust to civilian life.
Please read the rest here, especially for details on where Bushnell will be speaking in the future and ways you can contribute to the cause…
As Gateway Pundit says, it’s an Obama world now…
From a site called – I kid you not – Unicorn Booty:
Nicole Jodice’s sweet, sweet boo raises a gay pride flag above a U.S. military base while stationed in Afghanistan. Not a hoax! Not a photoshop illusion. Nicole assures us this is the real deal, baby!
A bottomless well of gratitude and admiration to not only the LGBT members of the military across the globe, but the incredible straight allies that literally wave the flag for equality wherever they go. We’re absolutely humbled and inspired by your support. Thank you!
Equality doesn’t appear to go both ways however.
In November, Politico reported that a Christian cross had been removed from an army chapel…
A large cross that had been prominently displayed outside a chapel on an isolated military base in northern Afghanistan was taken down last week, prompting outrage from some American service members stationed there.
“We are here away from our families, and the chapel is the one place that feels like home,” a service member at Camp Marmal told POLITICO. “With the cross on the outside, it is a constant reminder for all of us that Jesus is here for us.”
“Not having it there is really upsetting,” added another. “I walk by the chapel daily on the way to chow and the gym, and seeing the cross is a daily reminder of my faith and what Jesus accomplished for me. It is daily inspiration and motivation for me to acknowledge my faith and stay on the right path.”
Camp Marmal is a German base that hosts NATO forces. The interfaith chapel in question is supervised by the U.S. Army.
The soldiers said they found great comfort in the chapel —and the cross visible outside. “Sometimes the Church and the ability to openly express religious views ultimately gets people through the deployments over here,” one told POLITICO by email.
You can openly express sexual views in the army, but religious views are apparently too controversial.
Now it’s Christians who have to live their lives in a closet.
Why is the U.S. Charging Robert Bales With the Murder of an Unborn Child, But Didn’t Charge Nidal Hasan?
This is a legtimate question… Robert Bales has been charged by the United States military with 17 counts of murder, one being for an unborn child. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood gunman, was not.
Via the New York Times:
One of the 17 murder counts that the United States military filed against Staff Sgt. Robert Bales is for the death of the unborn baby of one of his victims, a senior Afghan police official said on Monday.
Sergeant Bales was formally charged Friday with 17 counts of murder and 6 counts of assault and attempted murder. Afghan officials have said, however, that 16 villagers were killed in the March 11 massacre in a rural area of Kandahar Province.
An additional murder count for an unborn baby would explain the discrepancy between American and Afghan officials over the number of dead.
“The Americans are right and one of the females was pregnant, which is why they are saying 17,” said the Afghan police official, Brig. Gen. Abdul Raziq, the police chief in Kandahar Province.
By contrast, Nidal Malik Hasan was only charged by the military with 13 counts of murder after his shooting rampage.
Michelle Malkin reported:
At Hasan’s Article 32 trial yesterday, a witness testified about Velez’s searing last words before succumbing to gunshot wounds during the attack:
A pregnant soldier shot during a rampage at a Texas Army post last year cried out, “My baby! My baby!” as others crawled under desks, dodged bullets that pierced walls and rushed to help their bleeding comrades, a military court heard Monday.
A soldier had just told Spc. Jonathan Sims that she was expecting a baby and was preparing to go home, when the first volley of gunfire rang out Nov. 5 in a Fort Hood building where soldiers get medical tests before and after deploying.
“The female soldier that was sitting next to me was in the fetal position. She was screaming: ‘My baby! My baby!’” Sims said.
Pvt. Francheska Velez, a 21-year-old from Chicago, had become pregnant while serving in Iraq. She was among the 13 killed in the worst mass shooting on an American military base.
Should have been 14. Not 13.
A 14th charge of murder could have been levied against Hasan based on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and Article 919a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is the same code cited in the New York Times article on Robert Bales.
Charging Sergeant Bales with the death of a fetus would explain the discrepancy and under a seldom-used section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the death of an unborn baby could be considered murder whether or not the killer was aware that a victim was pregnant and whether or not he had intended to kill the fetus.
Section 919a of the code, which also mirrors a similar United States federal law, states, “Any person subject to this chapter who engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to a child who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.”
Why was the seldom used section of the code invoked for Sergeant Bales, and not Major Hasan?
Retired Staff Sgt., Colleen Bushnell of the USAF delivered an impassioned response to Fox News commentator Liz Trotta. As you may recall, Trotta suggested “that women who defend this country should expect to get raped” when serving in the military.
Bushnell writes at the Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN):
Ms. Trotta’s detractors have continued to call on her to apologize, and on Fox News to fire her. What is clear to many female military sexual trauma survivors is that Ms. Trotta’s attacks, at core, stem from her belief that women should not serve in the military at all…
Did you really have to go there, Ms. Trotta? It is time for you, and others of your mindset, to join the rest of us in the year 2012 to recognize what women have been doing in the military for decades.
Bushnell goes on to describe personal trauma that she has endured while serving in the military. She speaks to Trotta from experience, then states:
With these circumstances as my truths, Ms. Trotta, I hear you. However, it is ludicrous to revisit an argument decided on more than thirty-years ago, beginning with the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948, which granted women permanent status in the regular, and reserve forces of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force.
Women are here to stay. It is time for you to get with the program. Women constitute about fifteen percent of the military’s end strength. Some say our work is responsible for avoiding the need for the draft.
It is an important counterpoint.
Here’s a demonstration of the importance of reading the fine print when there is any new policy presented by this administration. The Shark Tank is reporting on a Marine who claims his combat pay has been eliminated despite being in a war zone, unless he or she is actively being shot at or in imminent danger.
President Obama’s latest policy outrage makes no attempt to hide his contempt for our military, as he is ordering that our troops serving overseas in war zones overseas are not to receive combat pay unless they are being shot at, or at risk of being injured by hostile aggression. A Marine who lives in Florida has just posted a note on Facebook which stated that he received a letter from his MyPay account that he would only be receiving his Hazard pay (Imminent Danger Pay) if he is actually in a hostile area and at risk of being shot at.
Here is the Marine’s statement (language):
So I just got a letter from MyPay (the way we get paid in the military), saying that I will only (receive) Combat Pay while deployed for the days that I take fire or am in a hostile area. Now, as an Infantry Marine, I’m constantly in a combat zone…it may not always be popping off, but for them to take that away from us is bullshit. Now, the aviation tech who sits on Camp Leatherneck, sure, I can see him not getting Combat Pay, but to take it away from the grunts, the ground pounders, the front line of defense…come on, Uncle Sam. You let the Liberals win a big one here… Marine from Florida
This particular Marine is apparently stationed in Afghanistan.
Essentially, our service men and women can be in a combat zone for a month (just an example), and if they are shot at on three of those days, they will only receive three days worth of combat pay.
Please read more at The Shark Tank…