Posts

America’s Moral Divide Extends Even to the World’s Most Evil Terrorist

/0 Comments/in , /by

Former vice presidential candidate John Edwards was right when he said in 2004 that there are two Americas. The reaction to the targeting and death of ISIS leader Abu al-Baghdadi demonstrates the moral divide in this country between normal people and the “elites” more than ever.

Normal people who believe in good vs. evil, victim vs. criminal, and right vs. wrong reacted to the news yesterday the way it’s expressed in Proverbs 11:10: “When the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy.”

Those who believe that criminals are victims, babies should be executed, and murderers should be released from prison, aka progressives, have a difficult time with Trump celebrating the lowly death of one of the most brutal terrorists of this generation.

The Washington Post, in a roundly mocked obituary, titled its screed, “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.” They have since modified the title to “extremist leader,” refusing to mention which form of extremism.

Could you imagine such a headline from the media about Hitler’s death? For that matter, could you imagine a headline like this regarding a conservative they detest, such as Jesse Helms?

The media seems to have a fascination with humanizing people like Baghdadi, while President Trump rightfully depicts them in the dehumanizing way they acted. Bloomberg published a profile yesterday describing Baghdadi as a man who “transformed himself from a little-known teacher of Koranic recitation into the self-proclaimed ruler of an entity that covered swaths of Syria and Iraq” and said he “was killed along with a number of his followers.”

Rukmini Callimachi, who covers ISIS for the New York Times, in a profile piece at the Gray Lady, felt a need to quote local people who grew up with Baghdadi describing his pious devotion to his mosque and how he cleaned the building.

What exactly is the point in pushing this line of reporting now?

Even Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, in response to a question about the president describing Baghdadi’s death as a “coward” and “dog,” said he felt “a little uncomfortable to hear a president talking that way.” CNN’s Jake Tapper bizarrely felt that there was something wrong with what the president said, although he never explained exactly why it was wrong for him to paint such a “vivid picture” of the terrorist’s demise.

Thornberry qualified his answer by noting that there was utility to Trump taking the glamour away from Baghdadi’s death as an inspirational figure in the eyes of young recruits to terrorism. But why did he need to preface his remarks with the fact that he felt “a little uncomfortable?”

I guess we should just be relieved the Ninth Circuit didn’t place an injunction on Baghdadi’s death.

In reality, this was one instance where Trump’s undisciplined and unorthodox way of speaking is just what the time called for. The entire draw of ISIS was its glamour in martyrdom. Trump did a superlative job dehumanizing him while playing up the bravery of the special operators – all without too much focus on himself. He was actually right on message.

Also, Trump took the time to explain in greater detail and clarity why he believes it’s wrong to have a permanent ground presence in Syria. He deftly explained how ISIS is a bigger problem for Russia and the other neighbors and how it’s not our job to have a permanent presence there, but rather to engage in quick strikes and maneuvers as necessary. Taking away the shine from ISIS recruitment speaks exactly to what threatens us here at home, thanks to all of the people we’ve admitted into our country over the years who subscribe to this ideology. Trump’s rhetoric following this operation did more to deter their actions than a permanent presence in the region, which does nothing but help Russia and the Shiites. (For more from the author of “America’s Moral Divide Extends Even to the World’s Most Evil Terrorist” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Army morale hits rock bottom due to Obama-loving generals, loss of discipline

/2 Comments/in , /by

Photo credit: US Army

Only a quarter of the Army’s officers and enlisted soldiers believe the nation’s largest military branch is headed in the right direction — a survey response that is the lowest on record and reflects what some in the service call a crisis in confidence. The detailed annual survey by a team of independent researchers found that the most common reasons cited for the bleak outlook were “ineffective leaders at senior levels,” a fear of losing the best and the brightest after a decade of war, and the perception, especially among senior enlisted soldiers, that “the Army is too soft” and lacks sufficient discipline.

The study, ordered by the Center for Army Leadership at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, also found that one in four troops serving in Afghanistan rated morale either “low” or “very low,” part of a steady downward trend over the last five years. But the most striking finding is widespread disagreement with the statement that “the Army is headed in the right direction to prepare for the challenges of the next 10 years.” “In 2011, [active duty] agreement to this statement hit an all-time low,” according to the survey results, a copy of which were provided to The Boston Globe. “Belief that the Army is headed in the right direction is positively related to morale.” In 2010, about 33 percent of those surveyed didn’t agree with the statement; the number was 38 percent in 2006.

The apparent lack of confidence poses a new set of challenges to the Army as it undergoes budget cuts and shrinks its ranks. The Army’s top officer, General Raymond T. Odierno, says he is taking the findings to heart. “It is very important for us to be introspective, and we are committed to continual self-assessment,” Odierno told the Army Times newspaper in a statement. A major concern that the survey identified was whether the Army would be able to keep top-notch leaders as it cuts its ranks, as well as fears it would be stretched too thin to meet unforeseen demands. Junior officers were particularly concerned about retaining good leaders.

The active-duty Army, which is currently about 570,000 strong, is preparing to reduce its ranks by about 90,000 soldiers in the coming years, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down and the Pentagon budget is subject to a government-wide belt-tightening. “Comments on downsizing the force reflected concerns by leaders that troop reductions would significantly impact the Army’s ability to respond to future conflicts,” the study’s authors wrote.

The Army has historically surveyed attitudes within the ranks to improve professional education and training. But since 2005 it has undertaken the empirically based Army Leader Development Survey each year in an effort to identify trends and leading indicators for leadership problems and signs of dissatisfaction.

Read more from this story HERE.