Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Funny Stuff: General George Washington In A Mopar Charge!!
Law Enforcement: I.C.E. Takes Down ‘Super Cartel’, Responsible For Almost Half The Cocaine In The U.S.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, (ICE), estimated the cartel, named El Dorado, made $5 billion profit from their trade over the past few years.
Agents involved in Operation Pacific Rim alleged on Friday that the gang trafficked cocaine to every continent except Antarctica, with drugs bound for Europe and Britain smuggled through Spain.
They believe the gang were responsible for almost half of the cocaine on American streets, or more than 912 tonnes with an estimated street value of more than $24 billion.
*****
This is stunning news, and I am floored that this is not getting the attention it deserves. I know the whole McChrystal thing or the Gulf spill is hogging all the news right now, but this is some news of actual success in that other war we are fighting in. This bust is like taking down the Walmart of cartels. We will see what players step up to fill that gap, but still, this is huge.
That is the other part of this that is intriguing, and that is the second and third order effects from something like this. Often when you kill the big dog, the dogs in the pack fight for the new position. They also kill off any traces of the old dog, just to establish pure dominance and the new command. It is a brutal fight and there will always be an alpha dog that comes up from that process. So how ICE is able to take advantage of this chaos within the drug market will be interesting to watch. Stand by for some battles over that territory.
I also think that the money taken in these raids should be going towards a bounty system, along with funding the law enforcement agencies involved. We should see way more money being offered in the reward programs, and the wanted list should also include way more people. It is also important to note that ICE does have a ‘prize‘ system in place within the the law enforcement realm.
With the current arrangement at ICE, there is an incentive attached to the process of taking down these cartels. ICE has a deal called the Asset Forfeiture/Equitable Sharing program. It is a way to reward police agencies that cooperate with ICE in their operations, and they basically get to ‘split the prize’. That can be a lot of money to split, and just look at the numbers in the quote up top! If this program was opened up to include ‘licensed’ and bonded companies or individuals, they too could take part in that prize system and this would dramatically expand the program.
We already have the Rewards For Justice Program, yet only law enforcement agencies get to claim prizes after captures? I say open it up to private industry and lets get this business of eradicating drug cartels started. And believe me, there are plenty of drug cartels, terrorists, and pirates for militaries, police departments and private industry to go after.-Matt
—————————————————————–
ICE takes down billion-dollar Colombian drug trafficking organization
June 18, 2010
DTO finances its illicit empire by sending cocaine all over the globe
In Operation Pacific Rim, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), working closely with the Colombian National Police and Mexican authorities, took down a major drug trafficking organization — an industrial and transportation empire with a profit margin in the billions. The drug kingpins operating out of Colombia wrestled with a vexing problem — they made so much money from illegal narcotics trafficking that they couldn’t launder it all.
In fact, tracking the cold hard cash is one of the specialties of ICE’s investigative directorate, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). HSI is the largest investigative agency within the Department of Homeland Security. HSI agents working with ICE Attaché offices in Bogota and elsewhere brought this giant among drug organizations to its knees. HSI began Operation Pacific Rim in September 2009 after scoring a previous victory in an investigation where they seized $41 million in Colombia and Mexico. This is often the case in federal law enforcement, with one case that tips investigators off to an even bigger fish to fry.
Military News: McChrystal Steps Down, Petraeus Takes Over Afghanistan Post
McChrystal is replaced by Petraeus. The reason for McChrystal being let go is because of what was said in the Rolling Stone article. The choice of Petraeus was the best choice for the continuity of the mission and strategy according to the President.-Matt
——————————————————————
Petraeus to Replace McChrystal
Jonathan Weisman
JUNE 23, 2010
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama relieved Gen. Stanley McChrystal of commanding forces in Afghanistan, swiftly acting in the wake of derisive comments Gen. McChrystal and his aides made to Rolling Stone magazine, according to a White House official.
The president will announce the decision in the Rose Garden shortly. Gen. David Petraeus, the head of the military’s Central Command and the architect of the surge of forces into Iraq in 2007, will take over as the commanding general in Afghanistan, administration officials said.
The decision to put Gen. Petraeus in command sends a signal that the president stands behind the counterinsurgency tactics pushed hard by Gen. McChrystal and championed by Gen. Petraeus. Technically, as combatant commander in the military region that includes Afghanistan and the Middle East, Gen. Petraeus was Gen. McChrystal’s commanding officer.
By agreeing to take command, Gen. Petraeus himself was showing resolve to see the counterinsurgency effort through in Afghanistan.
Gen. McChrystal left the White House Wednesday morning after about a half-hour meeting with the president to discuss the critical comments the general and his aides made about top administration officials. The general was not seen returning to the White House for the Afghanistan strategy session later in the morning, as he has been expected, the Associated Press reported.
Mr. Obama had summoned Gen. McChrystal back to the White House for a face-to-face meeting to answer for critical comments he made about the administration that are raising questions about the general’s future.
Gen. McChrystal has apologized for the comments he made in this week’s issue of Rolling Stone magazine titled “The Runaway General.”
Gen. McChrystal is quoted as accusing U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry of undermining his efforts in Afghanistan. Aides to the general are quoted anonymously as saying Obama didn’t seem to know who McChrystal was when he appointed him to run the war early last year.
Story here.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Letter Of Marque: Is It Legal To Kill Osama Bin Laden?
I wanted to enter this into the record for LoM related stuff. This is interesting that there seems to be more discussion going on about Article 1, Section 8, and finally we might get some serious critique on the matter. For an idea to be strong, it needs to be forged in the furnace of debate and criticism. So I like hearing the concepts being thrown around.
One of the things I have been researching with the LoM lately is the reasoning why it still exists in the Constitution. With that, I had to go back to the Civil War during the 1860’s and see what the factors were during the signing of the Declaration of Paris in 1857. I thought this was some very intriguing history and it indicated how crucial the LoM was to wartime strategy for the US in it’s early wars–politically and militarily. It is also interesting how the Confederate Privateer’s wikipedia only presents part of the story about why the US did not sign the Declaration of Paris in 1857, and they make no mention of the Union paying blockaders (or basically private naval forces) to enforce the blockades necessary to stop the Confederate privateers. Ha! But there is certainly enough info about it all if someone cared to make the connections.(like me, hee hee)
Nor do they make any mention in this Confederate Privateer wiki of the Marcy Amendment or how the US thought privateering was necessary for a country who did not have a navy as strong as the European navies. Back in 1857, the US was all about privateering, and 4 years later, they were still all about privateering. I think Lincoln only publicly protested the concept because his enemy was using privateers and issuing LoMs to Americans and anyone in the world that qualified and wanted one.
Well, back to the article below. It is important to get the history and record straight as to what the real deal is about the Letter of Marque and why the US did not remove it from the US constitution. Because if there ever was an effort to bring back the LoM as a tool of warfare, this history will be crucial to the intellectual and legal discussion about such things. Interesting stuff. (all Civil War/Declaration of Paris information is at the end of this post) –Matt
——————————————————————
Is It Legal to Kill Osama bin Laden?
Not really. But if you act alone, you’re probably in the clear.
BY JOSHUA E. KEATING
JUNE 22, 2010
Gary Faulkner, the American man detained in Pakistan while trying to kill Osama bin Laden, will be released this week without charges, according to his family. The 52-year-old Colorado construction worker was arrested last week in northwest Pakistan for carrying weapons — including a pistol and 40-inch sword — without a permit. Questions of practicality (and sanity) aside, had Faulkner succeeded, could he have been charged with murder?
Probably not. Faulkner probably couldn’t be charged with murder if he killed bin Laden and then returned to the United States, since the murder would have happened abroad where U.S. courts have no say. “Universal jurisdiction” for crimes against humanity is an increasingly popular notion in human rights law, and one that’s been gaining some traction in the United States — a U.S. citizen was convicted of committing torture abroad for the first time last year — but a simple murder, particularly when the victim is the world’s most infamous terrorist, probably wouldn’t qualify.
Strategy: Rolling Stone’s ‘Runaway General’ Article And The Poker Game Called Afghanistan
So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war. There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word “victory” when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible. Not even with Stanley McChrystal in charge.-The last sentences of this article, (and the narrative that Rolling Stone wants the reader to accept)
*****
This is an interesting article in many ways. To me, I look at it from several points of view that might provide an explanation for such a thing. I look at the article as a big commentary on the poker game called Afghanistan, with a table of politicians, a president and his administration, civilian leaders, the enemy, Karzai, the media, and General McChrystal. Each player has their own strategy in this game, and each player has a plan to win. The stakes are political survival, the direction of the war, and the narrative in the history books and everyone is fighting for public support and opinion. So what is each player’s strategy and goals in this game?
Well, let’s break it down. The first up is Rolling Stone. For them the pot in this poker game is a sensational story and a further narrative of the war as being lost. That COIN sucks and General McChrystal is a ‘Runaway General’, or uncontrollable. Any way they can show a division between all the crucial leadership running the war, is good for their goal of ending the war. Rolling Stone is also a supporter of the Obama administration, but they also do not support the war in Afghanistan. So to them, showing a failed war and putting all the blame on an out of control general helps to insulate their guy in office. To show support for the administration, while at the same time protesting the war by making it the product of that insane guy in charge called General McChrystal.
The next player to discuss is the President and all of his men. They need a win in Afghanistan, but they have also painted themselves into a corner with the July 2011 date for withdrawal. They did this to appease their political base, and this date and the coming election is going to effect all of their decision making on the wartime strategy there. There is also historical context, and Obama does not want this to be his Vietnam. No standing President wants that, and every President looks at a war under their watch as how it will look in the history books. So the coming election and history are the two factors pressing this administration. Not to mention that he also has the economy and the BP spill in the Gulf as two negatives. He needs a win in one or two of these areas, because coming into re-election with all of those ‘losers’ will definitely hurt him.
Then there is the civilian leadership like Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador. Of course there would be friction between him and McChrystal, and especially after McChrystal was his subordinate at one point, and especially after he was not chosen as the viceroy in Afghanistan. Plus DoD gets way more money than DoS when it comes to budget and resources, and you have that clash. But there is one part of this story that clued me into the history narrative of this war. When Eikenberry leaked the cable to the New York Times about how pathetic Karzai and the war strategy was, this was a way to seal their place in history books as a ‘I told you so’. McChrystal and gang referred to it as Eikenberry ‘covering his flank for the history books’. Anyone see the pattern here?
The politicians mentioned in the article all have the same goal as the President, and that is political survival. To understand the mind of a politician, all you have to do is think in terms of votes and re-election. Whatever it takes to stay in office and rally their base. So the anti-war politicians whose base is anti-war, only benefit if the war strategy fails. The pro-war politicians whose base is pro-war, only benefit if the war strategy works. That is the two sides of this political battle, and each side will latch on to anything that will give them an advantage with rallying their base. As it stands now, Obama has declared the war in Afghanistan as the ‘Just War’, so I imagine that the anti-war politicians really don’t see Obama as a tool to use for rallying their base. But if they can split Obama from his ‘just war’ view, and get him to not support the war effort or accept that it is lost, then they would benefit. That is their prize, and going back to the Rolling Stone prize, you can see who benefits from whom.
The pro-war politicians will rally around the general that will insure success. They need a winner to rally around. So if they supported McChrystal and now an article like this is circulating a perception that he is out of control, or worse yet, helps to create a divide between all parties involved, then they will not benefit. You need a team who has a unified command and a unity of effort, and this article gives the impression that this is not happening. There is also the issue of Article 88 which prohibits officers from using ‘contemptuous words’ about the president and his staff. Pro-war politicians at this point look at this story as a threat to their chosen winner, and ultimately a threat to winning the war. But the narrative of the story points to a divided team, and these pro-war politicians need to address this in order appease their base.
The pro-war politicians could do two things. They could rally around the general, and especially if the administration and others accept his apology (and not fire him), or they could call for his head and get someone new in there that will work better as a team. In other words, if the General is looked at as the guy who is stronger than the President after the dust settles, because he thumbed his nose at him and his staff and they have not fired him, then he might be a guy they could rally around. Especially coming into election, and especially if the President is not popular in the polls. But they also need a guy that can seal the deal, and they really need a guy that the troops on the ground support. Because most of the base of pro-war politicians, are military and military families who all care about winning this thing.
Karzai is at the table as well, and success to him is just hanging on to power and collecting as much money as he can from the war effort. He will support anyone that will continue his good deal, and McChrystal is the guy–kind of. Or at least that is the arrangement that the general has set up. The general is working with Karzai and doing what is necessary to control him and work with him. Kind of like a SF operator working with a village chief. He has to, because there is no alternative. Karzai also knows that if the Taliban come into power, he is out, so if he wants to survive politically and even physically, he needs a strong general and western partner to insure that survival.
The Taliban are also at this table, and their strategy is simple. Keep terrorizing the population/government and just survive long enough to make it to this withdrawal date of July 2011. This date is all they need to win, because all they have to do is pour it on while everyone leaves. And as long as the people perceive the west as weak and unable to defeat the Taliban, they will give in to the Taliban.
Finally there is General McChrystal. Personally, I think this article was a way to test the political resolve of those at the top. If they fired him, then McChrystal can fade away from the war and not be attached to it’s ‘perceived’ demise. The whole ‘history book effect’ comes into play here as well.
If they accept his apology and keep the guy where he is at, then that means they are saying ‘we did not like what you said, but we need a win in this war’. It is the same reasoning for contracting with Xe for security work–they might not like them, but they are the best, and for wars, you need the best of the best to win. So in essence, McChrystal was probing the defenses of these leaders at the ‘poker table’, to see what their position is on his command and the strategy.(calling their bluff or trying to determine their cards in the game) If you look at his history in war and life, you can see that this is exactly how he operates. He is testing them. Because an acceptance of the general’s apology, is also an acceptance of the fact that he ‘is the best man’ for the job. The general needs that acceptance in order to go after what he really needs for a victory in Afghanistan, and that is time.
I really think all of this boils down to one thing, and that is that stupid withdrawal date of July 2011. If COIN takes as long as most of the experts claim it takes, then attaching a time frame to the current strategy is stupid. The general knows this, and this was a huge debate with the Iraq war. During that time, it was debated furiously during the presidential debates and between the pro-war and anti-war crowds. With Iraq, the narrative was ‘get out now’ versus ‘leave based on success and results’. The latter is what we went with, and that is what worked.
A withdrawal should only be based on victory, a retreat is what happens when you lose. I personally think this article was McChrystal saying ‘if you want me in charge of this war effort, you must give me time and the flexibility to win’. Because as it stands now, to seal any kind of a victory in Afghanistan by July of next year is impossible. I think most observers would say so as well, and this article symbolizes the very battle between all parties who have a stake in this war and the pressing issue of time. Each player in this game looks at time as a leverage for their specific goals in this game. Each player is also looking at their place in the history books and their political survival.
There are plenty of angles to this war, and I am sure I am missing a few in this discussion. Below I posted a few pieces of the article that were interesting to me. Anyway, check out the entire article and let me know what you think. Things are changing pretty quickly and it will be interesting to see how this unfolds over the days and weeks. –Matt
Edit: 6/23/2010 – And he is replaced by General Petraeus. Wow, and all because of an article from Rolling Stone. He played his cards, he lost, and now there is a new player at the table.
——————————————————————
By Michael Hastings
July 2010
(Pieces of the article are posted below–all curse words edited)
Today, as McChrystal gears up for an offensive in southern Afghanistan, the prospects for any kind of success look bleak. In June, the death toll for U.S. troops passed 1,000, and the number of IEDs has doubled. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the fifth-poorest country on earth has failed to win over the civilian population, whose attitude toward U.S. troops ranges from intensely wary to openly hostile. The biggest military operation of the year – a ferocious offensive that began in February to retake the southern town of Marja – continues to drag on, prompting McChrystal himself to refer to it as a “bleeding ulcer.” In June, Afghanistan officially outpaced Vietnam as the longest war in American history – and Obama has quietly begun to back away from the deadline he set for withdrawing U.S. troops in July of next year. The president finds himself stuck in something even more insane than a quagmire: a quagmire he knowingly walked into, even though it’s precisely the kind of gigantic, mind-numbing, multigenerational nation-building project he explicitly said he didn’t want.