Author: Larry Johnson

Unlike 9-11, there is a clear documentary track record that the Bush Administration can’t run from. After reading major portions of the National Response Plan (NRP), I am beyond outraged. I believe there are grounds charges of criminal negligence being brought against US Government officials. This is not partisan bashing. There are people who are dead who could have and should have been saved. The responsibility for not responding quick enough clearly lies with the Feds. Those ain’t my words, it is their own damn plan.

A List of Favorite Books – Larry C. Johnson Charlie Wilson’s War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History by George Crile “”Crile, a producer at 60 Minutes, has hold of a story here that everyone else missed, and his elation at having a big scoop dovetails with the enthusiasm that Charlie Wilson brought to his cause — arming the Afghan rebels to defeat the invading Soviet army in the ’80s.” The Main Enemy: The Inside Story of the CIA’s Final Showdown with the KGB by Milt Bearden JIHAD: The Trail of Political Islam by Gilles Kepel “The first extensive, in-depth attempt to follow the history and geography of this disturbing political-religious phenomenon. Fluent in Arabic, Kepel has traveled throughout the Muslim world gathering documents, interviews, and archival materials inaccessible to most scholars, in order to give us a comprehensive understanding of the scope of Islamist movements, their past, and their present.” FICTION SELECTIONS BELOW THE FOLD:

CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE AND KATRINA?

by Larry C. Johnson

The provocative title is intentional. Why did the Bush Administration fail to act according to the National Response Plan they created in December of 2004 to deal with an incident like Katrina?
What do you do when the words on the paper don’t match the action in the field? People are dying today in New Orleans and who died because of the failure to provide immediate aid are dead in part because of the negligence of Michael Chertoff. That is a harsh judgment, but if you will take time to read the National Response Plan that was signed into effect in December of 2004 there is no other reasonable conclusion.

The current effort by the Bush Administration to blame the victims in Louisiana and Mississippi is bad enough, but they are in big trouble once Americans take the time to understand that they the Administration ignored it’s own plan for dealing with a threat like Katrina. Why did they fail to implement the plan until it was too late to save lives along the Gulf Coast?

Don’t take my word for it, read the plan yourself. You can download it at NRP Base Plan (PDF).

The National Response Plan was accepted and implemented by Bush Administration in December 2004. According to the PREFACE, President Bush, “directed the development of a new National Response Plan (NRP) to align Federal coordination structures, capabilities, and resources into a unified, all discipline, and all-hazards approach to domestic incident management. . . .The end result is vastly improved coordination among Federal, State, local, and tribal organizations to help save lives and protect America’s communities by increasing the speed, effectiveness, and efficiency of incident management.”

Efforts by Chertoff and other Administration spinmeisters to pin the blame on the delayed response on State and local authorities does not hold water. Although the NRP recognizes that State and local authorities have a responsibility to ask for help, the NRP correctly provides a provision to take proactive steps to deal with a threat. On page 43 of the NRP the section is titled, “Proactive Federal Response to Catastrophic Events” (which I have copied and pasted below):

TWO FICTION SELECTIONS (Fiction that could be true) – Larry C. Johnson Memorial Day by Vince Flynn Fearless counterterrorism operative fights against the world’s most deadly terrorists in a harrowing political thriller. Black by Christopher Whitcomb, former FBI agent/sniper Novel: “Special A member of the FBI elite Hostage Rescue Team finds his missions take him into the world of black ops.”

The NRP establishes policies, procedures, and mechanisms for proactive Federal response to catastrophic events. A catastrophic event is any natural or manmade incident, including terrorism, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, national morale, and/or government functions. A catastrophic event could result in sustained national impacts over a prolonged period of time; almost immediately exceeds resources normally available to State, local, tribal, and private-sector authorities in the impacted area; and significantly interrupts governmental operations and emergency services to such an extent that national security could be threatened. All catastrophic events are Incidents of National Significance.

Implementation of Proactive Federal Response Protocols

Protocols for proactive Federal response are most likely to be implemented for catastrophic events involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive weapons of mass destruction, or large magnitude earthquakes or other natural or technological disasters in or near heavily populated areas.

Guiding Principles for Proactive Federal Response

Guiding principles for proactive Federal response include the following:

• The primary mission is to save lives; protect critical infrastructure, property, and the environment; contain the event; and preserve national security.
  
• Standard procedures regarding requests for assistance may be expedited or, under extreme circumstances, suspended in the immediate aftermath of an event of
  catastrophic magnitude.
  
• Identified Federal response resources will deploy and begin necessary operations as required to commence life-safety activities.
  
• Notification and full coordination with States will occur, but the coordination process must not delay or impede the rapid deployment and use of critical resources. States are urged to notify and coordinate with local governments regarding a proactive Federal response.
  
• State and local governments are encouraged to conduct collaborative planning with the Federal Government as a part of “steady-state” preparedness for catastrophic incidents.

Implementation Mechanisms for Proactive

Federal Response to Catastrophic Events

The NRP Catastrophic Incident Supplement (described in the Catastrophic Incident Annex) addresses resource and procedural implications of catastrophic events to ensure the rapid and efficient delivery of resources and assets, including special teams, equipment, and supplies that provide critical lifesaving support and incident containment capabilities. These assets may be so specialized or costly that they are either not available or are in insufficient quantities in most localities.

The procedures outlined in the NRP Catastrophic Incident Supplement are based on the following:

• The pre-identification of Federal assets and capabilities;
  
• The strategic location of pre-identified assets for rapid deployment; and
  
• The use of pre-scripted mission assignments for Stafford Act declarations, or individual agency authority and funding, to expedite deployment upon notification by DHS (in accordance with procedures established in the NRP Catastrophic Incident Supplement) of a potential catastrophic event.

Agencies responsible for these assets will keep DHS apprised, through the HSOC, of their ongoing status and location until the JFO is established. Upon arrival at the scene, Federal assets will coordinate with the Unified Command, the SFLEO, and the JFO (or its forward elements) when established. Demobilization processes, including full coordination with the JFO Coordination Group, are initiated either when the mission is completed or when it is determined the magnitude of the event does not warrant continued use of the asset.

______________________________________________________

While the Bush Administration is to be commended for coming up with a plan for dealing with terrorism and large scale disasters, it must be condemned for its abject failure to implement the NRP. And, specific heads must roll, starting with Michael Chertoff and the head of FEMA.

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio

Having watched Bush officials, particularly Chertoff, try to pretend this event caught them off guard with no way of anticipating what would happen, my bullshit alert went off. Here’s my take on why they deserve a beating.

“This is a case of negligence and incompetence that cannot and should not be forgiven,” Johnson writes below the fold.

KATRINA: HOTWASH VS. WHITEWASH

by Larry C. Johnson

Homeland Security has published a National Response Plan for dealing with disasters like Katrina. Unfortunately, nobody in a position of leadership in the Bush Administration appears to have read or understood this document. When the “hotwash” comes somebody better learn something. We can’t afford another disaster like this.

What’s a hotwash? After the military conducts a training exercise they carry out a “hotwash”. A hotwash is shorthand for an after action evaluation of the exercise. The hotwash is supposed to provide a chance to discuss the problems and shortfalls identified during the exercise. This process is supposed to lead to “lessons learned”, which, in a perfect world, means that actual learning takes place and we avoid committing the same errors when the real thing happens.

Having spent the last 11 years designing and executing counter terrorism exercises for the US military’s special operations forces, I have had a front row seat for watching how we are prepared to deal with the entire spectrum of terrorist threats.

Intelligence: The Human Factor (Securing Our Nation) By Patrick Lang Editor: Larry C. Johnson

Exercises are not just for the military. FEMA and Homeland Security have participated in dozens of exercises. The purpose of a Homeland Security exercise, for example, is to test the decision making and communication procedures that would use in response to say, a category 5 hurricane. The exercise would include making actual contact with State and local officials threatened by the hurricane. Well, guess what? We are not talking hypothetical, there actually was an exercise within the last year that involved Homeland Security and FEMA, which tested the very scenario of a hurricane hitting New Orleans and causing a breach in the levees. It looks like that instead of a ‘hotwash” we got a whitewash. Apparently nobody learned anything.

I don’t know if the Congress will let the President and the heads of Homeland Security and FEMA off the hook, but the media should not let any Administration official offer the lame excuse that this was unexpected or unprecedented disaster. The Administration’s own documents condemn them. Take a look at the Department of Homeland Security’s website. There is a National Response Plan that is supposed to be the guide for responding to disasters like Katrina. Why didn’t they use it?

BELOW: National Response Plan
National Response Plan

“One team, one goal…a safer, more secure America”

The National Response Plan establishes a comprehensive all-hazards approach to enhance the ability of the United States to manage domestic incidents. The plan incorporates best practices and procedures from incident management disciplines—homeland security, emergency management, law enforcement, firefighting, public works, public health, responder and recovery worker health and safety, emergency medical services, and the private sector—and integrates them into a unified structure. It forms the basis of how the federal government coordinates with state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector during incidents. It establishes protocols to help

This document contains the claim that, “The National Response Plan provides mechanisms for expedited and proactive Federal support”. Where in the name of God was the expedited and proactive support?

This is a case of negligence and incompetence that cannot and should not be forgiven. Al Qaeda operatives around the world have watched our bumbling, incompetent response to the hurricane. They have already determined that they can fight us on the ground in Iraq. They may decide that the time has come to bring the war back to our homeland.

Take a look at the section of the National Response Plan below that covers response strategies and coordination with local authorities. The only possible excuse is that the Federal officials forgot to read their own damn report!

Editorial

(Excerpt of Report)

Planning & Prevention

National Response Plan: Local/Federal Response Strategies & Coordination Structures

National Response Plan Main Page >> Local/Federal Response Strategies & Coordination Structures

Emphasis on Local Response

All incidents are handled at the lowest possible organizational and jurisdictional level. Police, fire, public health and medical, emergency management, and other personnel are responsible for incident management at the local level. For those events that rise to the level of an Incident of National Significance, the Department of Homeland Security provides operational and/or resource coordination for Federal support to on-scene incident command structures.

Proactive Federal Response to Catastrophic Events

The National Response Plan provides mechanisms for expedited and proactive Federal support to ensure critical life-saving assistance and incident containment capabilities are in place to respond quickly and efficiently to catastrophic incidents. These are high-impact, low-probability incidents, including natural disasters and terrorist attacks that result in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, national morale, and/or government functions.

Multi-Agency Coordination Structures

The National Response Plan establishes multi-agency coordinating structures at the field, regional and headquarters levels. These structures:

Enable the execution of the responsibilities of the President through the appropriate Federal department and agencies;

Integrate Federal, State, local, tribal, nongovernmental Organization, and private-sector efforts; and

Provide a national capability that addresses both site-specific incident management activities and broader regional or national issues, such as impacts to the rest of the country, immediate regional or national actions required to avert or prepare for potential subsequent events, and the management of multiple incidents.

New Coordinating Mechanisms Include

Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC)

The HSOC serves as the primary national-level multi-agency situational awareness and operational coordination center. The HSOC includes elements of the Department of Homeland Security and other Federal departments and agencies.

National Response Coordination Center (NRCC)

The NRCC, a functional component of the HSOC, is a multi-agency center that provides overall Federal response coordination.

Regional Response Coordination Center (RRCC)

At the regional level, the RRCC coordinates regional response efforts and implements local Federal program support until a Joint Field Office is established.

Interagency Incident Management Group (IIMG)

A tailored group of senior level Federal interagency representatives who provide strategic advice to the Secretary of Homeland Security during an actual or potential Incident of National Significance.

Joint Field Office (JFO)

A temporary Federal facility established locally to provide a central point for Federal, State, local, and tribal representatives with responsibility for incident support and coordination.

Principal Federal Official (PFO)

A PFO may be designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security during a potential or actual Incident of National Significance. While individual Federal officials retain their authorities pertaining to specific aspects of incident management, the PFO works in conjunction with these officials to coordinate overall Federal incident management efforts.

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio

by Larry C. Johnson

The unfolding disaster along the Gulf Coast is only going to get worse, unfortunately. I spoke today to a friend in Louisiana who has two sons that serve in the Louisiana State Police.

There are still stories not fully covered by the media. My friend’s boys, for example, were in a shootout last night with a rampaging gang in New Orleans. When the sun goes down the jackals come out. We will see more images of Americans shooting Americans in the coming days.

Another big surprise is the virtual surrender and retreat by the New Orleans Police Department. One state trooper, for example, caught and disarmed a New Orleans policewoman who was trying to break into a jewelry store. This has been a failure of leadership across the board, starting with the Mayor then the Governor and finally President Bush.

Intelligence: The Human Factor (Securing Our Nation) By Patrick Lang Editor: Larry C. Johnson

The body count is going to go through the roof. Only now are mortuary teams preparing to enter New Orleans. The obvious failure to cope with the aftermath of the hurricane is the fault of Federal, State, and local officials. Consider the levee breach. A friend of mine experienced with crisis response was completely puzzled why Federal and State authorities did not seize and sink barges in the openings. That is an expedient solution to a levee collapse.

The inept response to this disaster is an ominous harbinger of things to come if terrorists hit us with the big one. Ignore for a moment that fact that this scenario in New Orleans had been identified as a potential threat we should prepare for. We should recognize that a terrorist armed with a nuclear weapon could not inflict the physical damage that the hurricane caused. Although a surprise terrorist strike could cause more casualties, only a sustained aerial bombardment could match the force and fury of Mother Nature.

The crisis response to a hurricane is the same as a response to a terrorist attack. Restoration or services, remediation, and humanitarian help are the same regardless of whether it is man made or nature made. The biggest problems in any response are always the same–chain of command (i.e., figuring out who is in charge) and communication.

It is inexcusable for the Bush Administration officials to claim they had no way of anticipating this disaster or planning for it. At least they’ve been consistent. We now know that the failure to plan for the aftermath in Iraq was but a precursor of things to come at home.

MORE BELOW:

Hopefully this debacle will inspire the Republican-controlled House and Senate to get off their asess and demand the Bush Administration explain how it will respond if terrorists detonate a nuclear device in the harbor of New York City or Los Angeles. We don’t know if or when such a tragedy will happen, but we do know it is something that could happen and that we should be prepared to handle. That is the purpose of holding crisis management exercises. You work on problems and potential solutions before you are in the midst of an actual crisis.

Given the scale of the disaster along the Gulf Coast it is essential that the response be Federalized and that NORTHCOM be put fully in charge of coordinating and directing the humanitarian and crisis response operation. Unlike the current head of FEMA, the Commander of NORTHCOM is an experienced officer who knows how to command large scale operations.

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio

Intelligence: The Human Factor (Securing Our Nation) By Patrick Lang Editor: Larry C. Johnson

by Larry C. Johnson

Does George Bush hum Sam Cooke’s lyrics from “Wonderful World” (i.e., “don’t know much about history“) when he comes up with ill-conceived and incorrect analogies? Take for example his latest foray into the history of World War II. For starters he prematurely marked the anniversary of the end of the Second World War with Japan. Japan surrendered on 2 September 1945.

President Bush spoke this earlier this week at the Naval Air Station in San Diego and said: “As we mark this anniversary, we are again a nation at war. Once again war came to our shores with a surprise attack that killed thousands in cold blood.”

Having played the 9-11 card he said that like the Second World War, the US now faces “a ruthless enemy” and “once again we will not rest until victory is America’s and our freedom is secure.”

Drawing on World War II for solace to excuse the debacle in Iraq was also employed in June of this year by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who told members of the Senate and House that we faced setbacks in World War II and we should take that into account in our current war of terrorism. CONT. BELOW:

So, if World War II is the benchmark for our current effort than why have Bush and Rumsfeld botched things so badly? Consider these facts:

The United States and its allies in WWII defeated the Third Reich, Italy, and Japan in 1364 days (that covers the period from 7 December 1941 until 2 September 1945, when Japan signed the surrender documents). Of course that required a massive mobilization of our society to defeat these enemies, a dramatic expansion of the U.S. military forces, and a solid international coalition.

How goes it in the war on terror? For starters it is taking a lot longer. One thousand four hundred and forty nine days (1449) have elapsed since the attacks on 9-11 (today’s date, 31 August 2005). Why is it that our grandparents managed to defeat two major Armies in three combat theatres, but we still cannot find and finish Bin Laden?

Bush continues to insist things are going well. So how de we measure progress? If expanded insurgent activity in Iraq and regrouping Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan is progress then things are on track. If our continued failure to meet recruiting levels for the U.S. military counts as progress then we are moving ahead.

If the fact that international terrorism attacks have skyrocketed since 2003 (we have gone from 203 significant attacks in 2003 to almost 700 significant attacks in 2004) then we are winning.

Perhaps the time has come to call the Bush Administration on its persistent happy talk and delusional thinking (e.g., the insurgency is in its last throes). There is an enormous gulf between their public spin and the truth on the ground.

Bush’s comparison with World War II raises several uncomfortable questions:

Why was the United States able to defeat two of the most powerful military forces in the world simultaneously in 3 and 1/2 years but today cannot control, much less defeat, an Iraqi insurgency led in part by remnants of a third rate military power?

Why is Osama Bin Laden, the man who planned and authorized the 9-11 attacks still on the loose and planning more mayhem?

Why is our “coalition of the willing” coming apart at the seams?

One answer is that Bush talks tough but doesn’t take these threats seriously. In World War II we not only believed we were at war but we acted like it and organized ourselves to fight it. Not so today.

In the Second World War we had General George C. Marshall running the war effort.

Today, there is no one in charge.

Don Rumsfeld does his thing and the CIA does its things. In addition, very few Americans are being asked to make any sacrifice in this effort.

As we approach the fourth anniversary of the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001 it is time to ask ourselves why George Bush does not take the threat of terrorism as seriously as Franklin D. Roosevelt did the threats of Nazi and Japanese fascism. Instead of taking frequent vacations George Bush might want to spend some time actually dealing with this threat rather than offering empty speeches.

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio

by Larry C. Johnson

Sometimes in life there are no good options. It is part of our nature to always assume that we can fix a problem. But in life there are many problems or situations where there is no pleasant solution. If you were at the Windows on the World Restaurant in the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 9 am on September 11, 2001 you had no good options. You could choose to jump or to burn to death. Some choice.

A hard, clear-eyed look at the current situation in Iraq reveals that we are confronted with equally bad choices. If we stay we are facilitating the creation of an Islamic state that will be a client of Iran. If we pull out we are likely to leave the various ethnic groups of Iraq to escalate the civil war already underway. In my judgment we have no alternative but to pull our forces out of Iraq. Like it or not, such a move will be viewed as a defeat of the United States and will create some very serious foreign policy and security problems for us for years to come. However, we are unwilling to make the sacrifices required to achieve something approximating victory. And, what would victory look like? At a minimum we should expect a secular society where the average Iraqi can move around the country without fear of being killed or kidnapped. That is not the case nor is it on the horizon.

We may even be past the point of no return where we could impose changes that would put Iraq back on course to be a secular, democratic nation without sparking a major Shiite counteroffensive. Therefore the time has come to minimize further unnecessary loss of life by our troops and re-craft a new foreign and security policy for the Middle East.

BELOW, “The Current Situation,” “Options?,” and “So What’s Next?“:
The Current Situation:

Iraq has devolved into a tri-partite state, split among the Kurds in the North, the Shias in the South, and Sunni tribes in the middle. While things are relatively peaceful in the North and South, the central part of Iraq is in the grips of a defacto civil war. Most of the trained and deployed Iraqi police and military forces are Shia. Most of their operations are directed against Sunni targets. The Sunnis do not feel that they have a legitimate voice in the political process. As a result they have decided to fight.

The Shia majority, long oppressed in Iraq, are not willing, nor likely, to relinquish their new status as the tops dogs. They are receiving significant intelligence, economic, and political support from the Islamist government in Iran. The Shia also are well positioned to control a significant portion of Iraq’s vast oil resources. They are not likely to share this wealth with the Sunnis.

There is no effective national government in Iraq. The current group meeting inside the Green Zone to draft the constitution has no real clout. True power is held by tribal chieftains and religious leaders scattered around country. Those leaders are playing both sides of the fence—keeping a toe in the political negotiations in Baghdad while providing money and protection to insurgents.

The insurgency in Iraq is comprised of at least 20 groups. Some of these are Baathists, some are Sunni Islamic extremists, and a few are Shia. They agree on one thing—the United States is an invader and must be expelled. While there is no single leader who can claim the status or mandate as did Ho Chi Minh during the Vietnam days, the insurgents in Iraq are as firm and serious as those we faced in Vietnam.

The continued presence of U.S. combat forces and our operations against Iraqi civilians is recruiting new jihadists from around the Muslim world. Notwithstanding U.S. efforts to win the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people, the sectarian strife and the images of U.S. soldiers kicking in the doors of peoples’ homes while searching for insurgents is creating more anger rather than support.

The Sunni insurgents have control of the battlefield in the central belt of Iraq. Even today the United States military cannot keep a six mile stretch of highway open that runs from downtown Baghdad to the International Airport. U.S. diplomatic personnel and many key Iraqi Government officials live inside a security ghetto known euphemistically as the Green Zone. Even during the bleakest days of the war in South Vietnam, U.S. diplomats and soldiers could travel freely around Saigon without fear of being killed in bomb blast or kidnapped. We don’t have that luxury in Baghdad.

Options?

We could potentially defeat the Sunni insurgents if we were willing and able to deploy sufficient troops to control the key infiltration routes that run along the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys. But we are neither willing nor able. It would require at least 380,000 troops devoted exclusively to that mission. Part of that mission would entail killing anyone who moved into controlled areas, such as roadways. In adopting those kinds of rules of engagement we would certainly increase the risk of killing innocent civilians. But, we would impose effective control over those routes. That is a prerequisite to gaining control over the insurgency.

We cannot meet the increased manpower requirements in Iraq without a draft. We do not currently have enough troops in the Army and the Marine Corps to supply and sustain that size of force in the field. But, even with a draft, we would be at least 15 months away from having the new batch of trained soldiers ready to deploy. More importantly, there is no political support for a draft. In other words, we’re unwilling to do what is required to even have a shot at winning.

While the insurgency is not likely to acquire sufficient strength to fight and defeat our forces directly in large set piece battles, they do have the wherewithal to destroy infrastructure and challenge our control of lines of communication. The ultimate test of a government’s legitimacy is whether or not it can protect its citizens from threats foreign and domestic. Thus far the Iraqi Government has made scant progress on this front. Today’s attack in central Baghdad, by a uniformed unit of masked insurgents, represents another disturbing milestone in the continued growth of the insurgency. One of these days we should not be surprised when an insurgent force breaches the Green Zone and takes some U.S. diplomats hostage.

An ideal, but unlikely outcome, is that the secularists, who are trying desperately to craft a legitimate government, will persuade a sufficient number of Shia and Sunni leaders to turn their back on a religious-based government. Unfortunately, they don’t control weapons or militia. Force remains the ultimate means for deciding a country’s fate. In this case the guns are in the hands of those who favor an Islamic state over a secular nation.

If the United States tries to intervene now to compel power sharing on behalf of Sunni interests we are likely to trigger a backlash by the Shia majority. Mullahs like Moqtada al Sadr have demonstrated that they can mobilize combat units to kill Americans when their interests are challenged.

There are some indications that once we are out of the picture that the insurgency will turn on itself. As noted earlier a significant portion of the insurgents are not Islamic extremists. There is evidence that the different groups will fight each other. Sunni tribal chiefs are not likely to cede control of their territory to foreign Islamists once the United States is no longer on the scene. Our departure will likely lead to a brutal civil war, but such a war creates opportunities for the United States where it can rebuild its credibility with those forces who represent modernity and secular progress.

So What’s Next?

Staying the course and enduring further casualties while the insurgency grows stronger is an insane policy. If we persist on that front we will end up strengthening the hand of Islamic extremists and their role within the Iraqi insurgency.

Our choice is simple—either we invest in the military resources and personnel required to defeat the Sunni insurgents and allow the Shia and Kurds to consolidate power or we withdraw and let the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds find their own solution. We cannot ask our soldiers and Marines to give their lives and sacrifice their bodies for a new Islamic state. It is true that our withdrawal will create a major vacuum and damage our prestige. But the alternative, i.e., that we stay and try to train up sufficient Iraqi forces and help the fledgling Islamic Government get on its feet, will leave us the favorite target of insurgents and terrorists. And after we have shed the blood of our sons and daughters in trying to create a new government that will be controlled by Islamists, those Islamists will ultimately insist that we leave Iraq and no longer meddle in their affairs.

Rosy scenario does not live in Iraq. Until we come to grips with this truth American soldiers will continue to be killed and maimed for no good reason.

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio

by Larry C. Johnson

There are some things that George Bush should know about Casey Sheehan should he choose to sit down and talk with his mom. One thing he could discuss is the fact that a distant relative of his was wounded at Casey’s side. That boy, Brian Emmett, also is my second cousin. But more about that later.

Perhaps the conversation ought to start about the other seven men who died on April 4, 2004 in Sadr City.
From the Army’s 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas were:

Sgt. Yihjyh L. Chen, 31, of Saipan, Marianas Protectorate.

Spc. Robert R. Arsiaga, 25, of San Antonio, Texas.

Spc. Stephen D. Hiller, 25, of Opelika, Ala.

Spc. Ahmed A. Cason, 24, of McCalla, Ala.

Spc. Israel Garza, 25, of Lubbock, Texas.

From the Army’s 2nd Battalion, 37th Armor Regiment, 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division, Ray Barracks, Friedberg, Germany was Sgt. Michael W. Mitchell, 25, of Porterville, Calif.

And, from Casey’s unit, the 1st Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas was Cpl. Forest J. Jostes, 22, of Albion, Ill.

Maybe George Bush could clarify why these men died. According to several press reports, they were attacked and killed by forces loyal to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. And where is al-Sadr today? He’s a player in the Shiite community in Iraq which is on the verge of installing Islam as the basis of government in Iraq. In effect, Casey and his comrades were killed by people whose leaders are on the verge of taking control in Iraq. It would be one thing if George Bush could tell Casey’s mom and the moms of the other boys who died that their sons gave their lives to create a secular Iraq. But we now know that is not true. They gave their lives in a cause that is allowing some Islamic extremists loyal to Iran to play a major role in the “new” Iraq.
I don’t know if Casey Sheehan’s mom is specifically angry about that fact, but my cousin, Kathy Emmett-Meek, is furious. Her son, Brian, was in Alpha Company of the 2-5 Cavalry on April 4, 2004 when Charlie Company from the same Division were ambushed. Brian and his buddies were alerted and entered Sadr City to rescue their comrades. As they lept from their vehicle they were hit with a hurricane of bullets and RPGs. One bullet shattered Brian’s left tibia. An RPG exploded nearby and peppered his right ankle with shrapnel. Brian fired several clips at the enemy and only stopped shooting when he passed out from loss of blood. My cousin and his buddies were and are warriors.

Brian survived. He received a purple heart from George Bush himself during his Easter 2004 visit with wounded troops at Fort Hood. But Brian has not fully recovered. Brian’s mom ratted on him, telling me about Brian’s current state. Then, only after I badgered him did Brian himself admit his difficulties to me. Brian is trying to handle things quietly and bravely, just as he did that day in Sadr City. Yet, he still faces more reconstructive surgery. What is really tragic is that he battles the demon of survivor’s guilt. His mom tells me that, on bad days, he wonders why he was allowed to live and his buddies died. The good news is he still loves his country and is getting on with his life. What really sucks is that he is fighting the VA Bureaucracy to get his benefits. They still have not assigned him a disability status. He described his separation from the Army as a boot in the ass and good luck.

Brian and the other wounded vets deserve more than best wishes and good cheer. They have shed their blood in service to their country and deserve our full commitment.

The ultimate irony of this story is that Brian is a distant relative of George W. Bush (his mother tells me she learned of it while doing genealogical research). Well, at least there is some good news–George W. Bush can now claim he may have a relative who was wounded in combat in Iraq.

[From the diaries by susanhu.] Larry C. Johnson

The clueless right wing is up in arms over the momentum of the Cindy Sheehan anti-war movement. There appears no depth they will not plumb, nor mudpit they will not enter in their effort to smear a mother who gave her son in service to our country. I cannot award a Chutzpah prize because there are too many deserving schmucks. Take wheelchair bound Charles Krauthammer’s recent vicious attack:

She says she wants to ask the president why her son died. She already knows her own answer, and her answer is — and she’s said this openly — to enrich the president’s friends, meaning oil companies and contractors. There are a lot of honorable reasons and thoughtful reasons to oppose the war in Iraq. That’s not one of them. And to advance the idea, as she has also, to the press of the entire world that we are in Iraq as a matter of imperialism is to demoralize our troops, encourage our enemies, and to encourage those who say that we are there as conquerors and not as liberators, which can only endanger our troops, which I think is a disgrace.

Well, well. What does Charles say about President Bush’s multiple misrepresentations of why he took our nation to war? Nothing! In fact, according to Krauthammer’s reasoning, to even challenge the President over what we now know to be as patently false reasons for going to war, you are disloyal and demoralizing the troops. The same specious reasoning has been echoed by rightwing apologists like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter.
These apologists for Bush’s war ignore the lapses in leadership by George Bush and his Department of Defense that truly demoralizes the troops; things such as inadequate force strength on the ground in Iraq to control the battlefield; insufficient supplies of body armor; lack of fully armored vehicles for conducting patrols; and lack of a plan for victory in Iraq. George Bush, with the acquiescence of a pliable Congress, has sent our men and women to war in Iraq that he chose to start. Whether Cindy Sheehan’s explanation for why Bush took us to war is correct is irrelevant. What we know for certain is that George Bush lied to the American people and continues to lie about the reasons we are at war.

Initially, at least, we went to war to prevent another 9-11. While the intelligence community made mistakes about the status of Iraq’s efforts to rebuild its stockpiles of nuclear and chemical weapons, it got it exactly right that Iraq had no role whatsoever in supporting or promoting Al Qaeda’s attack on 9-11. But Bush and his Vice President chose to ignore the intelligence community and have continued to insist on the lie that Saddam was working in tandem with Bin Laden.

Bush’s misguided invasion of Iraq not only resulted in the death of Casey Sheehan and more than 1800 other U.S. military men and women, it diverted scarce military resources from the hunt for the Al Qaeda. If Cindy Sheehan does get a chance to sit down with the President I hope she asks him why the masterminds of 9-11–Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Zwahiri–are still on the loose and issuing videotaped threats to attack our country again.

If her son had died during an operation to kill Bin Laden than Cindy would at least have the peace of mind to know that her son died trying to make America safer. Instead, her son died in Iraq in an operation whose rationale still remains unclear. But we now know for certain that at least one of the President’s claims, i.e., that we are “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here”, is no longer true. Instead of a safer America the President has made America at greater risk of a terrorist attack by the Islamic extremists who struck our shores almost four years ago. Since 9-11 the number of international terrorist attacks have soared to unprecedented levels. Last year, for example, there were almost 700 separate terrorist attacks in which someone was killed or wounded. This marks the highest level of terrorist activity since data was first recorded in 1968.

So, as of today, Cindy Sheehan’s son is dead along with the sons and daughter of almost 1900 other families. The insurgency in Iraq is growing in strength and the level of international terrorism is growing. That Cindy Sheehan is angry should not surprise us. That all Americans are not up in arms over the recklessness of George Bush should.

[From the diaries by susanhu.] If Cindy Sheehan does not have a political agenda, she ought to.  She’s entitled to it because her son died in the service of his country.  The thing Cindy Sheehan most wants she cannot have.  She cannot hug her son.  She cannot offer him motherly advice about his girlfriend, his eating habits, or the music he plays too loud in his car.  You know, the normal stuff that mothers around this country, who love their sons, do because they can’t help themselves.

So, here’s my suggestion of some items for the political agenda:
First and foremost, get an apology.  The President betrayed his trust to your son as the Commander-in-Chief and started a needless war that ended your son’s life.  He owes you a heartfelt, personal apology.

Second, insist the President apologize to the country for the monumental mistake of taking us to war for wrong reasons, in the wrong way.  The events leading up to the war have dramatically undermined the confidence of the American people in their leaders.  The miserable conduct of the war’s aftermath has resulted in the needless deaths of Americans and Iraqis.  His recklessness has lead to deaths of our children and theirs.

Third, insist he hold someone accountable.  Someone failed to provide accurate intelligence.  Someone failed to provide sound analysis.  Someone failed to adequately plan for the aftermath of invading Iraq.  If Bush truly wants to be the War President then act like a leader and hold the people responsible for these failures accountable for their actions.  At the end of the day, this requires that George Bush hold himself accountable.

Finally, keep faith with the men and women have put on the uniform and carried arms on behalf of their nation.  We must do more than honor their service with empty words.  We must ensure that those wounded, physically and mentally, receive all the healing powers at our disposal.  We must ensure those who have returned alive have economic opportunities and can earn a living wage.  And, we must ensure that the survivors of those who have died, particularly the children, are cared for.

Those who shed their blood because they trusted George Bush to tell them the truth must be honored in death by holding the man accountable for betraying the sacred trust that exists in a democracy between a commander and his soldiers.  George Bush has betrayed Casey Sheehan and more than 1800 of his comrades in arms in sending them to war.  It is time for him to make reparations to the grieving families and a wounded nation.

[We invited Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA/State Dept. intelligence analyst and CEO of Berg Associates, LLC, to write front-page stories. Johnson’s blog is No Quarter — RSS feed.]

Before conspiracy theories get too far down the road a few cautionary notes on the Curt Weldon generated “ABLE DANGER” conspiracy. Let’s start with the source of this information–Congressman Curt Weldon. Congressman Weldon’s track record on issues like this is consistently spotty. Usually he gets a portion of the story correct but screws up the most important parts. That appears to be the case here.

The biggest flaw in Weldon’s scenario appears to be the role of SOCOM aka the Special Operations Command. SOCOM in 2000 was a weak command with no operational role in 2000. Even after 9-11 SOCOM struggled to try to function like the other regional CINCs. Prior to January 2003 SOCOM was barely a “supporting” command and did not function as a “supported” command. A “supporting” command has resources it can give to “supported” commands. In other words, a “supported” command has the authority to call upon and employ military assets from other commands. In the case of SOCOM it was essentially an administrative headquarters command but did not have a battlestaff nor did it control deployable military forces. It was only in early 2003 that Secretary Rumsfeld directed SOCOM to play a more aggressive role in tracking and killing Al Qaeda operatives.

MORE BELOW:
Weldon is probably correct that SOCOM in the summer of 2000 had hired some outside contractors who were developing a database using open source information for tracking possible terrorist targets. However, this is where the story breaks down. It is highly unlikely that Mohammed Atta was identified as an Al Qaeda operative in the summer of 2000. It is possible that Atta was identified as someone with possible ties to a jihadist group. What investigators are likely to discover is that it was only after 9-11, when the contractors looked at their data, that they realized they had the name of Atta and talked to someone in SOCOM about passing the info to the FBI.

In offering these cautions I am not trying to discourage an aggressive investigation of the allegations. Those who lost loved ones on 9-11 deserve answers. The investigation should start by asking questions of General Charlie Holland (ret. USAF), who commanded SOCOM at the time. He will be able to identify who was in charge of contracting at the time. Be sure to ask about the size of the J-2. The J-2 is the intelligence arm of any military general command. SOCOM did not have a large J-2 at the time. Normally the FBI and the CIA have a rep assigned to a major military command. Who were those people and were they aware of ABLE DANGER.

Frankly the media was largely asleep at the switch during the 9-11 Commission investigation. Better late than never. At the end of the day, however, conspiracy theorists who are convinced that the Government knew about the Al Qaeda cell and plans prior to 9-11 will be disappointed.

The real failing, which the 9-11 Commission refuses to embrace, is that the various agencies of the Federal Government had enough pieces of the puzzle that, if assembled into a coherent picture, could have prevented the attacks on 9-11. There was enough public info in 2000 about the need to focus on the threat posed by Bin Laden. Milt Bearden and I called for this in November of 2000. Richard Clarke presented National Security Advisor Condileeza Rice with a memo outling a more comprehensive strategy to find and finish Bin Laden. At the end of the day, the Bush Administration ignored the issue of terrorism until 10 September 2001, when the National Security Council held a meeting to discuss terrorism policy. Regrettably that meeting was too little, too late.