Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Air Force Brig. Gen. Mark O. Schissler Has His Head Up His A$$

Air Force Brig. Gen. Mark O. Schissler is calling for a multi-generational war against an undefined enemy.

In my personal opinion, Air Force Brig. Gen. Mark O. Schissler should resign, and remains unfit for command; he brings discredit upon himself, the United States Air Force, and the United States.

[ Details ]

* * *

Air Force Brig. Gen. Mark O. Schissler has suggested that this "war on the fabricated excuse to pump defense dollars into reckless defense contractors" will last generations.

Schissler that is not a strategy, which is an admission you have no victory plan.

* * *

Let's start with basics, Schissler, you're a Flag Officer. That means you're supposed to lead, not make excuses. Second, the US Air Force, even if it does control the airspace over Afghanistan and Iraq, is worthless unless it is integrated with a plan to prevail on the ground. Neither of those requirements has been fulfilled.

Third, before you or any of your alleged-co-conspirator-morons in the Pentagon start lecturing We the People about what "we" are supposed to do, start looking in the mirror:

___ Where were you when the illegal orders came down?

___ What did you do when you found out there was no WMD?

Quit your lectures, Schissler. Stop telling the public about what "we" should or should not be prepared to do.

The US Military has had it's chance, and has assented to illegal warfare. The illegal NSA activity started before Sept 2001. The US Military had, for the most part, universal support for combat operations in Afghanistan.

Despite the overwhelming odds in favor of your service, you and your peers have screwed this up. Big time.

Your job, General, is to look in the mirror and fix this problem yourself. Within the resources that you have been given, and decide whether you and your peers are going to work together to assert the rule of law; or whether you're going to make excuse to shift the burden of your failed command onto We the People.

Before you start lecturing us about what we should or should not expect, you and your alleged co-conspirators remain under investigation for war crimes; and you have a job to do: Resolve the situation in the context of reality. This is not a Generational war. This is a war between the US Government and the Constitution.

What a bunch of people living in caves in Afghanistan means for We the People is one thing: The US military has failed, despite the trillions of dollars spent, to outline a credible plan, implement the plan, and execute that plan to prevail. The losses of Sept-Dec 2001 have been squandered.

It is not our job, because the US Flag Officers assented to illegal warfare, to then spend the next 100 years supporting a war which could have been ended in the first weeks of December 2001.

Your plan is not acceptable. In my personal opinion, you are a disgrace to your service; you are contemptible; you bring dishonor upon your country; and you are a failed military strategist.

* * *

We the People, before we learned about the illegal NSA activity before Sept 2001. We the People were willing, as was done in the wake of Pearl Harbor to answer the call. The call never came. We were told, not asked, that the Generals had a plan, and that things would be taken care of.

In 2006, We the People are not going to blindly believe the same Generals who argue, despite the millions of dollars spent on your training, we are going to have a new solution requiring not weeks, but generations.

Absurd. Clearly, the funds spent educating you and your peers at the National War College have been a waste. The Kennedy School of Government obviously had a difficult time penetrating the minds of the flag officers who assented to absurdity, committed to a failed plan, and threw up their arms attempting to delegated your mess to We the People. Wrong answer.

* * *

If one generalizes reality, it could be similar to anything.

This is absurd:

Air Force Brig. Gen. Mark O. Schissler said in an interview that the current strategy for fighting Islamists includes both military and ideological components that make it similar to the 40-year Cold War against communism.

___ How do the comparisons with the Cold War tend to undermine the strategy?

___ How would facing these issues in 2007, regardless their similarity or difference with the Cold War, generate different approaches to victory?

Even if this were true, you've not outlined any strategy or plan for We the People to justify confidence; there's no basis for your number. It's jut a wild a$$ed guess: WAG. That's not a strategy, that's meaningless.

- -

Notice the problem, as absurd assertion equally matched by an absurd excuse not to fully do what one should -- use all lawful methods to organize to defeat a common enemy:

Al Qaeda's ultimate goal, the general said, is to set up an extremist "caliphate" stretching from western North Africa through southern Europe and along a path through the Middle East to Central and Southeast Asia.


1. The United States, according to Schissler, isn't one of the target areas;

2. The US is doing the fighting for others;

3. The US has no resources to do what is not connected to its defense.

___ If Alqueda is a threat to the Middle East, as the theory goes, why isn't the US joining forces with Iran and Syria to defeat the supposed common enemy?

___ Why does the US, located far away without adequate HUMINT resources in the Middle East, presume to have a superior knowledge than Iran and Syria as to what might be a threat to the Iranian and Syrian leadership?

___ What is the basis to assert that this goal, if it were real, can be sustainable?

___ If the "war of ideas" is the basis for measurement, how does the enemy of the week propose to generate income, unless they cooperate with buyers of oil?

___ Is the real issue that oil companies fear that they will not be able to extract oil profits from nations that are taken over by leaders who are not willing to roll over?

___ Once an empire expands that quickly, as would be expected, what is the reason that the "good forces" within the Empire could not operate from within?

___ The basis for defending Kuwait, as we learn from history, was not to defend Kuwait, but to permit the invasion, then drive the invader out. The reasoning was Kuwait would be easier to liberate than defend. Why isn't the same approach being used, permitting a rapid expansion which is not sustainable, then weakened?

___ Suppose the above goal were true, how do you explain its feasibility in being achieved given that the leaders of the AlQueda -- not the insurgents in Iraq -- have been largely destroyed?

The problem with the above argument is that it incorrect assert that an idealized version of "the goal" means that Iraq -- because it is on the broad path -- is linked with that goal. This is not correct. Rather, by fighting an unrelated war in Iraq, the US has turned the absurd goal into a more realistic goal.

- -

This is not leadership, but the words of someone making excuses for their ineptitude:

"We're in a generational war. You can try and fight the enemy where they are and where they're attacking you, or prevent them and defend your own homeland," said Gen. Schissler, deputy director for the war on terrorism within the strategic plans office of the Pentagon's Joint Staff.

___ Who is "the enemy"? You have no clue. You're making more enemies than you are defeating. You're training the enemy in Iraq. This isn't a strategy, this is reckless.

You do not "try and fight"; you either prevail, or you withdraw.

Your prescription that the "enemy" has to be fought where they are, or they will attack here is a false choice. They wouldn't be attacking us if we had not invaded Iraq, and continued to decimate their country, not providing them with jobs.

We do not have a "homeland". We have the United States of America. This is not Nazi Germany, and We the People are not engaged in "homeland" ideology; we have a Constitution, not a Fuhrer.

Your "war on terror" is meaningless. Terrorism is a strategy, like burglary. The very arrogance of you and your office is what inspires American citizens to withdraw support from the US government, and look for a new system of government that is not as allegedly reckless as the buffoons in your office working for you.

* * *

Stupid General

This is whining:

"But that's not enough to stop it. We've got to break the chain, and that's ... the ideology. We really need to show the errors in Islamist extremist thinking."

You've got infinite resources, time, manpower, and your government will even violate the law, and spend things on illegal things, but you still cannot do the simple things: Point to ideas and let ideas speak for themselves. What a load of non-sense.

Your problem, Schissler is that you work for a government that talks about principles, but throws them everyday in the trashcan. Before you lecture the terrorists or We the People about principles and ideas, look in the mirror and argue with yourself and your peers:

___ Why would anyone want to work for you?

___ Why would the American people support a Flag Officer like you who has missed the "big clue" on what the problem is?

___ Why would anyone believe you have a plan to prevail in the "war of ideas" in this "war on terror"?

Ideas mean putting them into practice, not simply asserting ideas, while you arrogantly parade the countryside in Iraq and Afghanistan doing the opposite.

* * *

This is denial about the reality of politics in the Pentagon: Make excuses blaming the public when the Generals have lost touch with reality on the ground and have no plan:

Gen. Schissler said he is concerned that Washington politics is weakening the will of the nation.

This is an excuse. Politics is a symptom of the needed debate. The "war of ideas" is about the conflict between this President and the Constitution.

The problem is this Country, and your Joint Staff, refuses to disobey illegal orders.

The reason this country is not supporting you is that you are not supporting the Constitution; and your peers have allegedly engaged in war crimes, and defied their oaths office. This would not have happened had you successfully asserted your oath in Afghanistan, and did what was done in WWII: Implement a Marshall Plan to show, by actions, that the US and Western values and ideas -- related to standards of living, capitalism, free markets, and modern living -- can provide for those who have been abused.

Rather than doing that, you and your peers assented to illegal orders, continued to defy your oath, and have now turned your mess into a disaster, then blamed the very American public that you have had the audacity to lie to.

This is not a war of ideas -- this is a war by this President and the Congress against the Constitution; and your peers in the Pentagon are not willing to resign, assert your oath, or call this what it is: A reckless, out of control, mismanaged, and disastrous excuse for governance.

Your failures are weakening your credibility. The "will of the nation" is a non-sense term. We the Pele are not required to continue support buffoons like you who can't or wont assert their oath.

We're talking about people on the ground in Iraq who have had their lives and dreams destroyed by you and your peers. If Americans were similarly invaded, we the People would do the same, just as was done after Sept 2001: Stand up for ourselves.

Schissler, your problem is you fail to comprehend that We the People are with the Constitution, and perceive you and your cess-pool friends at the POAC as the problem, not the solution.

My a$$ this nation is going to wage a "generational" war -- you have yet to convince anyone you have a plan in place, much less a strategy to do what should have been completed long ago: After prevailing on the battlefield, secure the peace. You didn't do that. it's not our job to pick up the mess. The solution is to send you and your peers -- who created this mess -- back to Afghanistan and Iraq, and personally speak to the insurgents to make the situation right.

Indeed, they are upset because you and your cess pool friends didn't listen to your own propaganda: Where are the oil profits; where is the big list of jobs; where are the nice hot tubs; and where are all the running fountains full of honey. It's not there, because it's a myth.

* * *

These are the words of someone who has forgotten who we works for -- We the People -- who are capable of making adverse inferences and do not need to "understand" non-sense:

"I don't care about the politics. I care about people understanding the facts of what's our enemy is thinking about, what's our strategy to defeat them, and for [Americans] to understand that it will take a long fight, mostly because our enemy is committed to the long fight," he said. "They're absolutely committed to the 50-, 100-year plan."

Schissler, you're an idiot. They wouldn't have the basis to assert at 100-year plan had the focus been maintained on Afghanistan, and the US had openly cooperated with the Syrians and Iranians.

There are enough problems going on today, and tomorrow, before you can credibly talk about a 50- or 100-year plan. Get real. You have a problem on your hands: Your peers -- We the People -- are discussing a New Constitution to make this cess pool problem -- the mess inside your brain -- from ever having the chance to take control of anything.

You care deeply about politics, Schissler. The Military is about politics. The reason you have not resigned or refused to disobey illegal orders, Schissler, is for one reason: Politics.

You do not care whether we do or do not understand anything: You care about one thing -- making excuses to shift attention from your failure.

Yes, the enemy is annoyed because the have one goal -- to stand up for themselves. They perceive all other options as being unacceptable. Whether we agree or disagree with that perception is irrelevant – their reality as they perceive it is what must be accepted as where we must start from. To prevail in a war of ideas, if that is the war you prefer, one must start with what the enemy is starting with – then move from there, not focus on our idea. They do not care about our idea, the only care about their idea. Nobody needs to be told that. But your non-sense is not a plan, nor a credible way forward: It is utter idiotic.

Either we are in a war, and military force will be used; or we are not in a war and prosecutions must be used. America has chosen to pretend this is not a war, and not a defeat.

Who cares what our enemy is thinking, when we have idiots like you in the Air Force who are more interested about "talking about the war" than explaining why you have not won, and did not disobey illegal orders.

Your job is to get the President to understand: He remains a lawful target for war crimes prosecution; your job is to make sure your peers in the Pentagon understand the facts of what the American people are thinking: We no longer have confidence in the US government.

YOU have no strategy to win. If you did, you'd be implementing it, not talking about it.

You continue to say that we should "understand" it will be a "long fight". No, you fail to understand that you have been defeated, and you are not going to get the resources for 100-years worth of endless battles. There is another way forward.

This is about oil. The oil isn't in Southern Russia as expected, and the "big threat" in Afghanistan suddenly disappeared when the oil companies realized it wasn't cost effective to take oil out though Afghanistan. Period. Quit your bull$hit about whether we do or do not understand anything. You're being condescending.

Your job, Schissler is to decide whether you are going to start doing what you talk about; or whether you're going to continue lecturing We the People about things that your peers wont' accept; and the President is incapable of comprehending: America's military has been defeated, and you are on the losing side.

You do not have the luxury of waging endless war. It will not be along fight. You will have a long time understanding this.

You have yet to define what "our enemy" means. If they are committed to prevailing over idiots like you, they do not have to wait for 50 of 100 years; they've already done it, as was done in Vietnam: America won every battle, but lost the war. In 2006, we won every battle but lost two wars: One in Afghanistan; and the second in Iraq. Congratulations, two losses for twice the American idiots.

___ Where are the "big ideas" you have that will convince "the enemy" that what they offer is better?

___ Why is American not able to point to a "big plan" in the Constitution that dares to demonstrate, with results, that "our way of live" is something others can aspire to enjoy?

You can't talk about freedom and democracy when We the People are told, not asked, to put up with home invasion, arrogance by law enforcement, and a refusal of this US Government to listen to ideas when they are timely. The ideas and concerns were expressed well before Sept 2001, but this government ignored them.

You do not have the luxury in 2006 going forward to rely on the mindlessness that existed in the wake of Sept 2001. If you want our support, its your job to make the case, not lecture us about why we should support something that has yet to be put into practice: Prudent governance consistent with the rule of law.

* * *

This is an irrelevant statement, known as leading by looking in the mirror, not looking at the road ahead:

AAmerica’s past wars lasted three to four years and sustaining support for longer wars "is very difficult," he said.

No $hit, Schissler: Because something is "difficult" is the reason that you're paid the bib bucks. Stop talking about what may or may not have happened after WWII, and focus on the reality of 2006: Your peers, We the People, are not inspired by the military. Deal with that. It's your problem. It was your choice. It was the willful decision by you, the Joint Staff, and the National Command Authority to screw this up.

People living in caves have made brigadier Generals living in Virginia look like compete idiots.

___ Where is your staff?

___ Is there a reason that you haven't been able to discuss a plan with your staff that is something other than waffling words?

___ Is this the best we can expect of a Brigadier?

___ Is there something that would prevent you from putting together a compelling plan to outline the "big solution" to this disaster that you and your allegedly reckless peers have created?

Quit your lectures, and either accept that your military command approach to problems has failed; or We the People may lawfully create a new system which will ensure that you and other alleged war criminals are lawfully targeted in a more timely manner.

When the American leadership chooses to wage illegal war, and lie to America, do not expect anyone to have any sympathy for the mess that you are stuck with. Had you told the truth, and not mislead Americans, we might be inclined to believe you.

America’s future is only as strong as the willingness of We the People to stand up to the arrogance of the ilk in Schissler who talk about "big things," but have no specifics. You've got classified communications systems, can use any amount of money to have a conference, and have infinite access to PhDs.

The best We the People have been offered is, "Crap, we really screwed things up in 2001, and we're just now realizing this, can you give us another chance?"

Hell no. You've screwed this up. When things are this $crewed up, its time to fire the leadership and find more competent people who are willing to think, not be poodles like you.

* * *

The numbers, even if they are true, are wholly inconsistent with the numbers JTTF has been using to justify illegal activity in the United States. It should not take "generations" to defeat a few thousand people, but this crew of idiots in DC has failed to do the simple:

A Joint Staff briefing on the long war against terrorism states that since 2001, more than 3,000 al Qaeda terrorists are held in more than 100 nations, including 500 in Pakistan, while two-thirds of al Qaeda leaders are dead or in prison.

Wow, 2/3 of the enemy is wiped out, and you're talking about a war that will last 100 years. This is stupid.

The problem Schissler, is that you fail to comprehend that the world doesn't look at America like it did in WWII; they look at America like they look at the Germans: Invaders, occupiers, and defeatable.

When military force is used, but it fails to achieve results, that emboldens the enemy. This is not a new lesson of war. This is how insurgents win: To incite the enemy to use too much force, and then demonstrate that the enemy -- the Untied States -- is recklessly using power ineffectually.

We the People are your larger problem, Schissler. We are fully capable of making adverse inferences:

___ Did the National Command Authority take the bait, and imprudently use power? Yes, they were stupid.

___ Did the National Command Authority refuse to obey illegal orders? Yes.

You and your peers cannot be trusted. You have chosen to put your political ambitious and military career before your commissioned officer's oath to the US Constitution.

People living in caves in Afghanistan are less of a threat to We the People, than the likes of the allegedly reckless General Offices wandering the streets of Maryland and Virginia wondering how this possibly could have happened. You failed.

One simple answer: You love power and stupidity more than you do the rule of law and prudence. This was your choice. You were well trained on the laws of war, but you have allegedly defied your oath and failed to put 5100.77 into practice. When given the choice, you and your peers have chosen to pretend that the laws of war do not apply, emboldening the enemy, and undermining confidence in what you cannot do -- follow simple instructions.

* * *

Notice a General in the pentagon isn't sure; at best he's being vague. This is not leadership, but being wishy washy:

"We're pretty convinced that the extremists are not ever going to give up the fight," Gen. Schissler said, noting that they are driven by the concept of jihad that makes it a religious duty to wage terrorist war.

Wow, looks like you have a very serious problem: Your problem seems almost insolvable.

___ Do you have a plan to prevail over what seems impossible?

___ When you say that you are "pretty convinced," that doesn't sound convincing. Do you understand why "the enemy" (however you're defining that today) is emboldened: They see that the "leaders" of the battle are not clear on something.

___ "Not ever going to give up the fight" -- do you really believe that?

___ How do you explain the US support for the religious training?

___ How much money is riding on the line if this "indefinite war" is no longer supported by We the People?

___ How many defense contractors are going to lose money because We the People refuse to buy weapon systems that are no longer linked with defending the United States, but merely there to wage endless war?

___ What is America's definition of peace?

___ "religious duty to wage terrorist war" -- They are opposing abusive American power; if the countries in the region are not interested in defeating those who are a threat to stability, why does American care?

___ How have the Geneva Conventions been factored into "your big plan"?

___ "terrorist war" is an absurd characterization: War is terror, America uses terror bombing and does not prevail. What is the US Approach to demonstrate, with actions, that our approach to governance is marginally better than what the US has not been able to put into effect in Afghanistan?

___ If you had the choice between a bad system of governance, and one that was a threat to your life, would you choose the bad system that others may oppose; or would your embrace the system that was a threat to your life?

* * *

Notice the contrast between what he's saying and what he does. A war of ideas, even if it were a war, would mean that bad ideas in the White House should have been defeated by good ideas in the Joint Staff. In this war of ideas, the stupid ideas have prevailed:

The current war on terrorism requires fighting with ideas. In the Cold War, "we didn't beat ...the communists by militarily taking them to the battlefield," he said. "We took them to the intellectual battlefield and beat them against their ideas, the ideology of communism."

"War of ideas" is stupid: In reality, Iraqi children are tired of getting shot. that's not an idea, that's reality. Stop talking about ideas, and start demonstrating respect.

___ How do you know that, "The current war on terrorism requires fighting with ideas": What is the basis for this assertion; where can you show that this is true?

___ When you say "The current war on terrorism requires fighting with ideas" are you saying that ideas alone will prevail?

___ What is the nature of the "ideas" -- if we were to surround ourselves with them -- would insulate us from idiots in the Pentagon who refuse to disobey illegal orders?

This is a rewriting of history: "We took them to the intellectual battlefield and beat them against their ideas, the ideology of communism." What a load of non-sense. The US didn't simply use ideas, We the People built off the legacy of WWII. Consider the "war of ideas" in Vietnam: The US lost. Schissler, if I ever want to have lunch with someone who's not doing anything of value, I'll be sure to give you a call.

* * *

This is non-sense that would get a freshman cadet at a military academy laughed at for parroting non-sense:

"We took them to the intellectual battlefield and beat them against their ideas, the ideology of communism."

___ Does this mean, because Cuba still exists as a country, that Cuba intellectually prevailed over the US?

___ What happens if there is still a communist outpost, can the US claim victory?

___ How can the US say that the "intellectual battlefield" means anything when it comes to Cuba: If we truly had confidence in our approaches, we would let our ideas stand up to public challenge. Not this President, he hides from reality, hides from ideas, hides from evidence.

It doesn't mean much when the General on the "intellectual battlefield" are stupid, Schissler

* * *

Notice the wrong focus of the military -- not on the profession of arms, but on "other things." This is not a military strategy, but something the State Department and Peace Corp should be doing. This shows the Pentagon is attempting to provide leadership in areas it is not qualified. This is evidence the White House has not well delegated responsibilities to the appropriate agencies:

One goal is to disrupt al Qaeda efforts to "radicalize" young people ages 19 to 25 through educational efforts. Another objective is to assist moderate Muslims who see extremism as unacceptable.

Extremism is always preferable when the alternative is abusive slavery by idiots who are thousands of miles away talking about ideas, but imposing abusive power around the globe.

Schissler, your problem is that you look at the enemy through the eyes of an extremist: That of the NeoCon agenda.

* * *

Again, this is not a military objective, but a state-level objective. There is no linkage between combat operations and peaceful assistance, unless the Pentagon has been assigned responsibilities it is not qualified to perform:

Another objective is to assist moderate Muslims who see extremism as unacceptable.

Stunning. The year is 2006, five years after 2001, and suddenly someone outlines an objective, but fails to include the following:

___ Why should we believe this will work

___ Didn't this fail with the Iran-Contra affair: The effort to work with "Iranian moderates"?

___ How do you specifically hope to dovetail your two marginally articulated goals: The (a) war of ideas; with (b) support for moderate Muslims?

___ Which Joint Staff officer at the 3- and 4-star level is letting you talk about this gobbly goop without refining it into something that is workable?

This is not impressive staff work. Very bad sign about the competence of the Joint Staff.

* * *

The truth surfaces, America's "war of ideas" in this "terrorist war" stands on the backs of religious people. This is the absurdity behind America's "war" -- our "security" depends on factors outside our control. That is not a goal, but a defeatist-approach to waging war, and achieving goals. Karen Hughes and Condi Rice appear to have not taken full responsibility for what the Pentagon has no responsibility to do:

Ultimately, Muslim scholars, clerics and other religious and government leaders will have to "take a stand," albeit one that carries grave risks because of the extremists' harsh methods, Gen. Schissler said.

___ "extremist harsh methods" -- you mean the intrusion by JTTF into our homes, and open disdain the US government has for people who dare to call things what they are: A mess?

___ Which "grave risks" are you talking about; can you be specific; are the clerics being told to choose between (a) abusive American power; or (b) a system of governance which is competent?

By asserting that the US "war on terror" is on the back of religious scholars, would have us believe that education overseas will protect America. Non-sense. Education is worthless when combined with stupid leaders on the Joint Staff.

___ What motivation doe the leaders in these countries have to do what America's government will not do: Reasonably demonstrate competence?

___ Why are poodle Generals in the Pentagon lecturing We the People about what we should or should not be doing; but we're told -- not asked -- that "someone else" will have to take a stand?

This is not leadership, it is more of the NeoCon shell game.

* * *


Air Force Brig. Gen. Mark O. Schissler needs to have immediate staff assistance visit. The OSI and Air Force Audit Agency should do the following:

___ Review the specific plans Schissler has developed

___ Identify whether the plans have been appropriately staffed through the Joint Staff

___ Identify who specifically on the Joint Staff authorized Schissler to discuss these issues with the open media without going through Public Affairs

___ Identify the specific strategy that Schissler is talking about, and review whether the plan or objectives are in writing

___ Get a clear explanation from Schissler why he has provided no background information, talking points, or white papers to support his approach

___ Review the cost estimates, basis for plans, and basis for estimates Schissler has been using; and determine which independent cost estimate team assumptions he has used to make any assessments of what will or will not work

___ Determine, and submit to the House and Senate Armed Services Committee which doctrine, plans, or other Air Force papers Schissler is using, relying on, or has referenced as the basis for his statements

___ Identify the specific reasons for Schissler's appointment and promotion as a Flag Officer to his current assignment

___ Identify the education, technical training, and management skills Schissler has shown, demonstrated, reported, or otherwise represented that would justify confidence that he is competent to make statements related to the issues he's publicly discussing

___ Determine which assignments he has been given that should be appropriately assigned to Members of Congress, or other agencies under the White House

___ Get a clear statement from the President on why specific assignments and responsibilities have been delegated to the Pentagon when they should be assigned to other agencies

___ Use the above analysis to discuss why the Joint staff, National Command Authority, and the National Security Counsel have ineffectively delegated responsibilities to agencies not suited to implement their assigned responsibilities

___ The Vice President needs to explain in detail the basis for the assignment of the tasks to the various Executive Agencies, and explain in writing to Congress why specific assignments were delegated to the Pentagon, when those responsibilities should be openly discussed with the HASC and SASC for reassignment to more appropriate Committees for Debate


Air Force Brig. Gen. Mark O. Schissler appears to be living in a dream world. He's making assertions which are not supported; and he's yet to articulate a coherent strategy, operational goals, or anything that will be effectively integrated as an overall US military and national policy.

His comments do not appear to have been coordinated with anyone in Academia of sufficient stature to inspire confidence. Schissler offers nothing specific, and appears to fail to grasp the fundamental military realities confronting the joint staff and the US Government: Defeat on the last two forums where American once had moral and military superiority -- the courtroom and the battlefield.

As a Flag Office Schissler's comments are stunning, indicating that American military planners fully five years into an armed conflict, are still unclear on the military and national policy objectives. This is noteworthy in itself, but raises substantial questions about the education the Flag Offices are getting; and their effectiveness in integrating their public statements with public affairs, the State Department, and the Judge Advocate General.

America's military problem is a failure of leadership, not only in executing a finite war against specific military targets, but in translating the military victories into sustainable, peaceful post-conflict operations. War is not the only objective of America's military commanders: Victory, and peace are equally paramount requirements.

America’s leaders must decide whether they are committed more to waging endless war, or in securing the confidence and trust of We the People to protect this Constitution. America's military leaders have chosen to fumble around, not do their jobs, and then make excuses for having bungled the peace. War requires a plan not only to prevail, but to justify civilian confidence in what has been achieved.

Schissler does not offer us by way of specifics, but points to nebulous notions of "war of ideas", yet his thinking, by way of example, does not inspire confidence the architects of the war of "ideas" have many credible options.

We the People should and can reasonably expect more of Flag Officers, especially when, contingent upon their promotion, they are to have demonstrated competence in command assignments, and in Senior Staff education. Schissler's approach to policy making, leadership, and governance appears to be at best imprecise, at worst reckless and flawed.

Schissler's job is to decide whether the wants to remain in a building and in area of employment that rewards marginal efforts and abysmal results; or whether he would like to join the ranks of We the People who are committed to keep the war of ideas focused on the central war: The rule of law, and the US Constitution, as it is lawfully imposed on the President.

Schissler is in a difficult position. The Commanders and Joint Staff have failed. Where there is a leadership problem in the White House, the likes of Schissler have been promoted not on the basis of the quality of their thinking, but their ability to parrot non-sense, and create confusion.

We the People are able to make adverse inferences. The way forward is to accept that the likes of Schissler have been poorly served, marginally supported, and at best left to fumble where they could succeed. Schissler needs assistance, not through a promotions, but with more GAO Staff Assistance Visits to the Joint Staff. The GAO needs to be brought into the nexus which Schissler and the Joint Staff have created. We the People can stand the answers. The way forward is to find out what has gong terribly wrong, and find new leadership for the White House.

America's way forward will be difficult, not because the enemy is all powerful, but because the power of the enemy within -- it has taken control of the minds of the US Government officials; rewarded incompetence and negligence; but has not been there as a credible challenge to what remains an unclear, poorly articulated, and vague set of policy objectives. One cannot argue that a policy to "succeed" means anything when the means to achieve that policy are anything but connected with success, but linked with desperation.

America's military commanders must decide whether you are going to assert prudence, admit that you do not know what to do, and need help; or whether you are going to pretend you know what you're doing, all the while you support bungling policies which are disconnected from our core American values: Our Constitution.

America's military commanders have been defeated, they just won't admit it. The way forward is not to tell We the People that we must prepare for anything; rather, it is time for America's leaders to surrender from the illegal rebellion against the rule of law, and accept the terms that are lawfully imposed on you. This is not a negotiation, nor is it the end.

The way forward is a war crimes tribunal. American military commanders must decide whether you want to voluntarily cooperate, or whether you and your peers will have to endure sustained combat losses before you are compelled to face what you refuse to admit: That you have waged, and not timely prevented illegal war. We the People are able to make an informed choice, and lawfully defy your call to arms -- we are not required to support a US government that offers us the choice between absurdity and barbarity. There are lawful options, and this government and its officials have refused to retreat, withdraw, or surrender as they should.

Defeat is not a bad thing. You are still alive. However, with defeat comes the responsibility to accept the consequences for what has gone wrong. What may or may not happen to the oil supplies or in the minds of a few upset people in the Middle East is of little interest when the larger problem of US abuse of power remains unaddressed. You may not lawfully compel We the People to be distracted by the random acts of violence as a diversion from what you have failed to do: Competently lead.

Leadership does not require action in all cases. Sometimes, as is the case after an enemy strikes, leaders must never respond; but move when the conditions are favorable the leader, not when the enemy can induce you to respond. A war of ideas means to demonstrate by your example that you are committed to prevailing, not simply in asserting the interest of prevailing, without a credible plan to ensure sustained support for what is ultimately won.

Whatever American military commanders have, they have created for themselves. Their defeat is not our defeat; their victory is elusive because they have been poorly led. Our job as We the People is to accept that we have been betrayed, and that we have lawful options. If this is a war of ideas, then our ideas should be able to prevail -- they have not. If this is a war on terror, we should not terrorize our peers -- we have.

Going forward, the way for Americans to be secure in their homes is to stand tall, speak out, and lawfully defeat the likes of Schissler who point to problems overseas, but do not offer anything of substance to justify confidence that their vision is credible, must less supportable. The way forward is not necessarily a war of generations; but an agreement of something else. War is not the only option; an alternative is not a choice between extremism and war; but between the rule of law or the rule of barbarism.

Schissler, if he is to succeed, must be given the assistance of a competent joint staff that is willing to review the laws of war and US Constitution; and capably put those principles into practice in the United States. When America's Constitution is safe at home, we might venture a glance at what American may or may not be concerned with abroad. Oil is not the only reason that America has abused power; the abuse is because America's leadership has been unwilling to refuse to cooperate with what is unlawful. The rule of law, the greatest idea, will only succeed when the distractions of abroad are put aside, and the rule of law is forcefully imposed on the President. Until then, We the People will be asked to endure the rants of the likes of Schissler who offer us little but more excuses to avoid looking at the greatest extremist America has ever known: The President currently making a mess of America's greatest idea: The US Constitution.

* * *

I would prefer the following:

___ GAO, OSI, and AF Audit Agency report to SecDef Gates and outline the problems with the Joint Staff doctrine, staffing, and apparent problems with integrating with the State Department.

___ GAO should forward the results of the internal review of the Joint Staff, NSC, and OSD to the HASC and SASC for a public review and discussion.

___ A military draft needs to be put on the table, with the express purpose of mobilizing resources on what is savable: Afghanistan, and make a long term commitment to the security of the Afghanistan-Pakistan Border. Where commanders view requirements are 10, I would like to see 50.

___ NATO Commanders should discuss with their peers in the EU the way forward to have back channel discussions through Turkey and Georgia with Iran. These can be done at the classified level; the aim should be to stabilize the support with Saudi Arabia for a workable government in Iraq.

___ Joint Staff Flag Officers at the LtGen/Admiral level need to decide whether you are going to resign, or are going to get with the new program. You're part of the system that has chosen to compromise on the rule of law. You've shown that you cannot be trusted to assert your oath, but compromise on what cannot be compromised. Your resignations will be welcome.

___ The war of ideas means permitting the likes of the Iranians to debate an issue of the Holocaust, and let them reach their own conclusions. The war of ideas will, if they are to be believed, will show that the "myth of the Holocaust" is different than the Holocaust. The Holocaust did occur; and the Iranians, when they say the "myth of the Holocaust" mean the opposite -- that the terrible loss of live in WWII has been the pretext Israel and other have used to not sanction Israelis for abusing others. I would encourage the OSD and State Department to review the contractors who are providing the translations from Farsi to English and encourage them to focus on the meaning of the Iranian language, not simply the literal translation of the closest concept. Iran views Israel as being something that will not survive forever; this is much different than calling for its annihilation. A nation which is relying on its history of abuse as a pretext to abuse others is just as complicit with abuse as the original abusers who were behind the Holocaust. We lie in 2006, not in the post-WWII era where history is the excuse to abuse others. Let the war of ideas prevail on the basis of factual discussions of what the Iranians view; whether we agree or disagree with them is not as important as choosing to engage with them on the basis of a common goal -- to stabilize Iraq.

* * *

I expect full cooperation with the war crimes prosecutors. America's military integrity is on the line. Your peers and future military offices are closely watching: Is America serious about the idea of the Constitution; or does American require the lawful intervention by outside prosecutors to do what the US Government refuses to do in the United States -- assert the rule of law.

Sept 2001 started with 19 people. Others in Afghanistan were largely destroyed. Despite the early gains and victories, 19 have blossomed into millions. America's military has failed. The strategy is not workable. The way forward is to find a new Commander in Chief in the White House.

America's military leaders, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have a job to do -- decide which side of the rule of law they are on; and decide whether the order they have been given are or are not lawful. You are advised to seek legal counsel.

We the People number in the millions. Just as 19 in Sept 2001 have inspired millions, so too has the US Constitution inspired We the People.

America's military commanders must decide whether you are on the side of We the People and the Constitution; or whether you would prefer something else. One has inspired millions; and We the People outnumber you. We are fully prepared to put our lives on the line, if we are forced to choose between the absurdity of the past, or the promise of the US Constitution. We have options, and we remain fully committed to assert the rule of law, even if it means directly engaging the US military on the street, in our homes, and in our neighborhoods.

The Commander in Chief said, "Bring it on." We the People have arrived. We have the Constitution. America's military must decide: Are you on the side of We the People and the Constitution; or are you on the side of a man who has squandered your prestige, good reputations, and honor.

We the People, the rule of law and the Constitution Shall prevail. We are millions, you are far less, and have well demonstrated that even with the use of abusive military power, you can do little to take the wind of the sails of those who are marginally inspired. We the People are inspired to protect the Constitution; we the People shall prevail.