Americans Understimate the Opposition

Desperate leaders call the enemy crazy without explaining why they have been defeated by the crazed.

* * *

The error of Americans is to cast the enemy in terms that suggest craziness. Your enemy, when it is viewed as irrational, may be the target for public rebuke, but is not credibly understood.

Public calls that the enemy is crazy may motive some to rally for war, but is not a true picture of the enemy, or the real perspective the American leadership holds of the enemy.

* * *

If you want to understand why Americans are being defeated, you need only contrast the private discussions of the American leadership with their public statements. America's enemies are cast as irrational, crazed, and bent on evil designs. This may motive a populace, but fails to explain America's defeats.

Consider:

___ If the enemy were truly crazy, why are Americans unable to defeat the crazed?

Response: The enemy is rational, and able to formulate plans to achieve victory. That is not craziness, but victory. If the enemy were crazy, they would not be able to develop and implement prevailing policies.

* * *

The error is to look at your enemy as fanatical. If you want to mobilize for war, without regard to facts or reality, the fastest way to mobilize the masses is to suggest the enemy is out of control. However, America's enemies view America's government as being out of control.

* * *

Your enemy looks at America's government as crazy, not because they have misperceptions, but because their only method to explain the American government behavior is with "Craziness."

America and Iran share a common enemy: Radical forces. Put aside the nuclear issue and ask why America and Iran, if they share a common enemy, are not willing to put aside their differences, focus on the common threat, and work together. We learn that Iran made overtures to the US after Sept 2001, but these were rebuffed.

___ Why will the US not do as it did during WWII, and work with the Iranians, as it did with the Russians in WWII, and fight a common enemy?

* * *

A generational war may be required not because the enemy is crazy, but because America's leaders would rather have many enemies, and not align themselves with those who share common enemies.

America, in abusing power, has more enemies after Sept 2001. This is not something America's enemies did, but what America, through the abuse of power, inspired. America abused power, failed to prevail in combat, and this defeat and failed use of power has emboldened America's former allies to take new paths and oppose America.

America faces a generational war not because the enemy is strong, but because the US has been defeated, but refuses to end and surrender.

It will take generations to subdue Americans and the emboldened enemy is prepared to prevail. They have won once; they do not believe anything -- they know they can win again.

* * *

When America's leaders say their enemy is crazy or fanatical and suffers defeat, the leadership implicitly argues the American leadership is more reckless and crazy than their opponent.

This outcome hardly inspires confidence America has competent leadership or can effectively government. This is maladministration. America's problem is in avoiding impeachment it is letting the maladministration, once confined to bureaucratic squabbles, to leak into foreign affairs and combat.

Maladministration at home is the same as war crimes abroad. Until Congress lawfully compels the crazed, reckless American leadership to stand down, foreign fighters may lawfully ignore the American's defeat, and continue to inflict greater combat losses on American forces, interests, and personnel around the globe.

Be careful who you call crazy or naive. Especially when you do not know what you're talking about, who you are referring, or what you are up against. The error is to find out after you have been defeated that the crazed enemy is an army of warriors more loyal to your principles and founding principles. Indeed, the ultimate deception.

* * *

For the US, after invading another country, to compel anyone -- without evidence or charges -- to assent to abuse, is unreasonable, and signs of an illegitimate judicial system.

The US may try people, but the illegitimate convictions may inspire US citizens to leave, and take up arms to oppose the US government -- not in an invasion of the US, but in the lawful defense of their new homeland.

Americans are not required to remain loyal to any government that wages illegal warfare. They may lawfully relinquish their citizenship, create new lives in new lands, and, if the American government illegally invades, take up arms to defeat the forces of tyranny in other lands.

America does not only have a foreign enemy, but the inspired those who refuse to cooperate with what is illegal. The American abuse of power is not a transitory phenomenon that can be buried forever in the pages of history, forgotten. These abuses are a permanent, searing memory in mind of the world of what free, democratic citizens are capable of doing.

Freedom and justice will not prevail when they are illegally imposed through the illegal threat of force. The issue isn't that the enemy hates America or freedom, but that it hates the abuse, something lazy Americans have grown fond of enduring in the name of retirement accounts. May your livelihoods and security take second seat to the ultimate justice you choose to ensure more defeat: The battlefield.

This is what you get when you choose not to rock the boat, go along, and play nice with your internal enemy. What is not managed, through the clash of factions, will spiral out of control and face the ultimate clash on the battlefield. Anything the DNC leadership refuses to confront at home foreign fighters may lawfully confront on the battlefield: Incompetence, maladministration, abuse of power, deception, and illegal warfare.

Even if Americans refuse to protect the Constitution, foreign fighters will send more messages of defeat. This President has no intention of changing course, only in repackaging the enemy in terms the DNC poodles will silently embrace, not challenge. The error is to whine of what could be done if one had power, but to remain complicit despite the opportunity to do what the Founders assumed would occur: A clash of factions.

These are no longer issues of simple domestic politics, but politics at the extreme end of the political spectrum: Combat. The error is for the Congress and the lazy toads in the US legal community to believe, through sheer force, they can impose law. However, the likes of Addington and Gonzalez, who did not graduate from any service academy, is to believe warfare is a mental game which lawyers can outmaneuver.

They fail to realize that lawyers are at a disadvantage: They are not well versed in the laws of war, and the ability of foreign fighters to lawfully impose reciprocal, like abuse against the American legal community, either directly or indirectly through proxies.

The failure of the American judicial and oversight system is measured in terms of what adverse consequences American government officials are forced to endure, face, confront, and ultimately lawfully destroyed on the battlefield.

The error of a lawyer is to ignore the law; the second error is to pretend that a marginal lawyer is an expert General. Neither a General nor a competent lawyer, America's legal system is being called to account: For having failed to prevent what is not lawful; and for having not stopped what is not working.

America's lawyers are part of the problem. They refuse to effectively oversee their industry, do not aggressively challenge internally the likes of Addington and Gonzalez; and have illegally permitted war crimes to continue without adequate peer reviews or disbarments.

Never mind what should happen. Foreign fighters continue to impose discipline. If there is a draft, there will be more targets, more destruction. The American lawyers are fanning the flames of war to distract attention from their reckless and defective legal system.

Until American citizens effectively oversee the failed American legal system, you should reasonably expect more non-sense excuses by the Congressional Staff counsel to assent to illegal warfare. Your sons and daughters are the pawns of the inept American lawyers who refuse to confront their own, and would prefer you confront the bad effects of maladministration in Arlington, rather than forcing the American legal community to confront the real problem in their peer's office.

America's greatest threat and opposition lies in the halls of Congress in the Staff Counsel's office. Combat losses are directly linked to their incompetence, and unwillingness to firmly assert their oath. They may have taken options off the table, but they remain the ultimate threat to the US Constitution: Your internal rebellion and insurrection against the rule of law and needed Article III judicial accountability.

Despite losing on the battlefield, the Congressional Staff counsel pretends they can prevail in the court. Yet, it was their failure in court which prompted them to grasp at combat.

___ Where do the poodles in the DNC Congressional Staff counsel plan to hide when the questions surface about why the did or did not act on the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports?

The greater threat is when the DNC Staff counsel and GOP leadership agree they have a common threat -- the law -- and agree to put aside oversight in the name of agreeing to chase another ruse enemy.

The DNC problem is the failure to internally review what did or did not happen between 2001 and 2006:

___ What was the reason the DNC Staff Counsel has for not aggressively challenging the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports?

Response: They are complicit: For having failed to know the law, and not timely doing what they knew, or should have known, should have been don: Document the evidence of criminal activity, forward the information to the US attorney, seek peer support at the State level, and forward evidence to the inspector Generals and international war crimes prosecutors. A gap in evidence can be adversely presumed to be evidence of not having fully done what one should have done: Provide competent legal advice, or seek outside counsel to ensure the legal requirements were fully asserted.

___ Why are the same DNC Staff counsel, who were allegedly complicit with failing to do what should have been done -- challenge the gaps in the title 50 and Title 20 exception reports -- in a position to oversee the wrong problem?

Response: More of what failed is absurdly presumed to have a change. They have learned the Bush Defeat Doctrine well.

___ Why should anyone believe that the DNC Staff counsel, allegedly complicit with maladministration in re war crimes, can be trusted to effectively oversee all investigations into DNC and GOP personnel who may have been complicit with the failure to challenge illegal warfare?

Response: There is no reason to have confidence in the new DNC Staff Counsel. They have a high burden of proof, especially if they've acted as nothing more than an enabler for things that could have been prevented had the Filibuster been used. It remains to be examined why, even if a filibuster option were used, why it was not used to end illegal appropriations for what is not legal warfare.

The DNC would rather enable abuse of power, than run the risk of standing up to abuse, or making others take away options which are not effectively used. An option which does not remain on the table is not an option, but a meaningless threat. You might as well be blowing smoke.

___ What's the worst you're going to do, run to the court and file a complaint complaining about an issue you're not competent to oversee: Illegal combat operations?

It's one thing to have been a veteran, quite another to translate that combat experience into a marginal interest in doing your moral best to keep all lawful options on the table. You do not win when you agree to be defeated; and when you are defeated, you cannot credibly argue you're going to more "if only you have more power." You've had power and have done nothing; rewarding you for your inaction with more power ensures you will continue doing nothing.

The DNC Staff counsels have no credible answers because they are allegedly complicit with illegal warfare, and remain attached to defeat, not the rule of law. The Foley Ethics Report is a useful proxy to see what the DNC Staff counsel is willing to accept as being “no problem”. Bipartisanship is meaningless when both parties have agreed to do nothing about illegal warfare, and alleged complicity by both parties in what is not longer defendable. Alas, they ask for more defeats on the battlefield.

They wished this.