PENTAGON SUED FOR ALLOWING MEN WHO BEAT WOMEN TO POSSESS GUNS (VETS NOT EXEMPT)

PENTAGON SUED FOR ALLOWING MEN WHO BEAT WOMEN TO POSSESS GUNS:

VETS WHO BEAT THEIR WIVES SHOULD NOT BE EXEMPT.

VETS WHO BEAT THEIR WIVES SHOULD BE COURT FORCED INTO THERAPY, NOT ALLOWED TO CARRY GUNS.

NO WOMAN CAN PROVOKE A MAN TO BEAT HER BRAINS OUT OR SHOOT HER BRAINS OUT.

21st CENTURY AMERICA STILL LAGS WHEN IT COMES TO PROTECTING WOMEN.


Sources: Washington Post


***** After Texas church massacre, cities sue Pentagon for failing to report criminals to FBI gun database


Three cities have filed suit against the Pentagon for lapses that allowed a mass shooter in Texas to buy a gun, even though he carried a conviction in military court that should have barred his purchase.

Devin P. Kelley, who was convicted of domestic violence while serving in the U.S. Air Force, was never reported by the military for inclusion on an FBI database of individuals blocked from purchasing firearms. Kelley went on to kill more than two dozen churchgoers in Sutherland Springs, Tex., last month in one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history.

In the complaint filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., the three cities — New York, San Francisco and Philadelphia — say they rely on the integrity of the FBI’s background check system. The suit alleges that the defendants, which include the military branches and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, have an “admitted, systemic and longstanding failure to comply with the law.”

The cities are seeking to force the Defense Department to fully participate in the reporting system, which they said is already required by law. They also want the court to oversee the department’s compliance efforts.

“The Executive Branch and Congress have both had their chances to repair this clearly broken system. Now, after twenty years of failure, it’s time for the Courts to step in,” Ken Taber, a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence also helped prepare the suit.

A spokesman for the Defense Department declined to comment Wednesday, citing a policy against commenting on ongoing litigation. A spokesman for the Justice Department said the attorney general has launched his own investigation into the issue.

“After visiting first responders and victims’ families in Sutherland Springs, Attorney General Jeff Sessions instructed the ATF and FBI to conduct a comprehensive review with the Department of Defense of how certain information is reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System,” Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley said in an email Wednesday. “The Justice Department is reviewing yesterday’s lawsuit and determining next steps.”

Members of a family ravaged by the Sutherland Springs shooting have also filed suit against the Air Force, alleging its failure to report Kelley’s criminal background led to their loved ones’ slayings.

Military officials have long acknowledged problems with the way it reports records to the FBI gun background check database.

According to Pentagon guidelines, military law enforcement personnel are supposed to submit fingerprint cards as well as information about the results of a criminal proceeding to the FBI database if troops are charged with or convicted of certain violent crimes, including domestic violence and child abuse.

However, a recent review by the Pentagon’s oversight agency, which examined 2,502 criminal cases between January 2015 and December 2016, found that 1 in 4 fingerprint cards were not submitted to the database. Military law enforcement failed to submit one-third of the final disposition reports, the review found.

Kelley’s record should have disqualified him from purchasing a weapon. Kelley spent a year in jail for crushing his young stepson’s skull, assaulting his wife and making other threats. He received a bad-conduct discharge from the military in 2014, a step below a dishonorable discharge.

Two years after his discharge, Kelley cleared a background check and bought a Ruger AR-556 semiautomatic rifle from a San Antonio sporting goods shop.
The weapon was found in front of the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs after the Nov. 5 killings.

MATTIS SCORES CONGRESSIONAL WAIVER TO LEAD PENTAGON (AVOIDS PC QUESTIONS)

GEN MATTIS SCORES CONGRESSIONAL WAIVER TO LEAD PENTAGON:

AVOIDS POLITICALLY CORRECT GAMES DURING CONFIRMATION HEARINGS.

MATTIS LOVES THE USA & RESPECTS US MILITARY.

Sources: Times of Israel, C-Span, YouTube

******* Trump’s Pentagon chief: The capital of Israel is Tel Aviv
~ "The capital of Israel that I go to, sir, is Tel Aviv, sir, because that’s where all their government people are."

Diverging from the signals the president-elect has been sending out, James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis opts to ‘stick with US policy’.


President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to head the Pentagon said Thursday that the United States should continue treating Tel Aviv as Israel’s capital, breaking with Republican members of Congress and intimations the incoming president could fulfill his campaign pledge to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.

Asked during his confirmation hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee if he supported the embassy’s relocation, retired Marine Corps general James “Mad Dog” Mattis said, “Right now I stick with the current US policy.”

Facing an hours-long session of questions from senators, he emphasized: “The capital of Israel that I go to, sir, is Tel Aviv, sir, because that’s where all their government people are.” He also noted, however, the determination was not part of his remit as defense secretary nominee.

“I would defer to the nominee of Secretary of State on that, sir,” he said.

The last three successive presidents have maintained that the future status of Jerusalem should be settled in final negotiations between the parties, as both Israelis and Palestinians claim the city as their rightful capital.

But Trump has indicated since his victory in November he will no longer honor that tradition. In December, he nominated his longtime friend and attorney David Friedman, a vocal supporter and donor to West Bank settlements, to be the next US ambassador to Israel

In a statement announcing the selection, Friedman said he expected to carry out his duties in “Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem.”

Trump also repeatedly promised during the campaign that he would move the embassy. While past presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also vowed on the trail to do so, neither fulfilled that promise once they assumed the responsibilities of conducting America’s foreign policy.

Mattis’s position further underlines a difference with most Republican on Capitol Hill, who make up the majority in both chambers of Congress.

The Obama administration allowed passage of a United Nations Security Council Resolution last month that condemns settlements as a violation of international law. The text states that all areas Israel captured in the 1967 war — which includes East Jerusalem and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, with the Temple Mount and Western Wall, the holiest sites in Judaism — are “occupied Palestinian territory.”

Earlier this month, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R), Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R) and Nevada Sen. Dean Heller (R) proposed the Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act, which urges Trump to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US embassy there.

Mattis declined to comment on the motion Thursday, telling the senators he needed more information on the particulars of its content.

He also diverged from most GOP lawmakers in expressing support for a two-state outcome to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

“If it brings peace to the Middle East,” he said, while also indicating he is willing to hear alternatives despite his skepticism that another resolution to the conflict exists.

“If there’s another solution, I’d be happy to hear what it is,” he said, before later stressing America had a “vital interest” in the two sides reaching a peaceful accommodation to their decades-long dispute.

At a hearing on Wednesday, Trump’s pick for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, also endorsed the two-state solution.

In the past, Mattis has been a critic of the Israeli settlement enterprise, asserting that its continued expansion imperiled Israel’s future as a Jewish, democratic state.

“If I’m in Jerusalem and I put 500 Jewish settlers out here to the east and there’s 10,000 Arab settlers in here, if we draw the border to include them, either it ceases to be a Jewish state or you say the Arabs don’t get to vote — apartheid,” he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in July 2013.

During that same conversation, he also said the United States pays a security price with the rest of the Arab world for its support of Israel.

Mattis, who headed the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) under President Obama from August 2010 to March 2013 (a post that has command authority for all US forces in the Middle East with the exception of Israel), did imply during Thursday’s hearing that his former boss did not always send a comforting message to Israel as an ally.

There was “a sense” in Jerusalem, Mattis said, that the administration has been “indifferent to their security concerns.” Under that assessment, he told committee members, it was “time to build trust” with the Jewish state.

Mattis also addressed the Iran nuclear deal, saying he thought it was an “imperfect” pact, but that the US had an obligation to abide by its terms. “When America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies,” he said.

During the campaign, Trump sent conflicting messages on the Iran accord, suggesting he would both abrogate the deal and enforce rigorously. Since being elected, his top advisers have indicated he will not withdraw from the deal unilaterally unless Iran violates the agreement.

TRUMP PICKS GEN "MAD DOG" MATTIS TO LEAD US TROOPS TO VICTORY AGAINST ISIL

TRUMP PICKS GEN JAMES "MAD DOG" MATTIS TO LEAD US TROOPS TO VICTORY AGAINST ISIL:

EXCELLENT CHOICE FOR SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.


Sources: LA Times, MSNBC, YouTube


****** Why Trump needs James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis


"Trump needs Cabinet officers who are willing to stand up to him and push back when he’s wrong. Mattis has already done that."

When President-elect Donald Trumpannounced that James N. Mattis was his choice to lead the Department of Defense, what seemed to delight him most was the retired general’s Iraq war nickname: “Mad Dog.”

“Mad Dog Mattis!” Trump told a post-election rally. “Mad Dog. He is great, he is great…. They say he is the closest thing to Gen. George Patton that we have.”

Over the next few weeks, we’re going to hear a lot about Mattis’s prowess as a combat commander and his salty exhortations to the troops he led.

“Be professional, be polite, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet,” he told his Marines. (A pretty good definition of what combat forces are for, actually.

And he incautiously told a partly-civilian audience that fighting is “a hell of a hoot. ... It’s fun to shoot some people.” (He apologized for that one.)

But if Trump chose Mattis for his mad-dog reputation, he made a good choice for the wrong reason.

Yes, Mattis was a Marine who demanded “ferocity” from his troops in battle. But he’s also a strategic thinker and scholar who ordered his officers to read military history, can quote Marcus Aurelius or Ulysses S. Grant — and never much liked the “mad dog” sobriquet his men bestowed on him in Anbar province.

Off the battlefield, he’s soft-spoken, thoughtful, cautious — and, most important, un-Trumplike.

Indeed, Mattis has already disagreed with many of the foreign policy positions Trump adopted without evidence of deep study during his campaign.

Trump has suggested that the United States should adopt an “America First” foreign policy, shedding excess obligations and spending less on traditional alliances. Mattis has called for “continued engagement in the world” and “stronger alliances,” and said Trump’s dismissal of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance was “kooky.”

When Trump called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States, Mattis said the proposal caused “great damage” to U.S. relationships in the Middle East. (Trump later softened the policy to “extreme vetting.”)

Trump has suggested that Vladimir Putin’s Russia could be a U.S. ally; Mattis considers Putin a major threat, and believes the U.S. should do more to help Ukraine.

And, as Trump himself reported, Mattis told the president-elect to his face that he was wrong to suggest that U.S. forces should torture suspected terrorists for information. “Give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers, and I’ll do better,” the general told the president-elect.

Trump and Mattis also differ on Iran, which could set up one of the new administration’s first big foreign policy debates.

Trump has said dismantling Obama’s 2015 nuclear arms deal with Tehran would be his top priority. Mattis says that’s simply impractical.

“There’s no going back,” Mattis said in April. “I don’t think that we can take advantage of some new president’s [arrival] and say we’re not going to live up to our word on this agreement. I believe we would be alone if we did, and unilateral economic sanctions from us would not have near the impact of an allied approach.”

Instead, he said, the priority should be to keep pressure on Iran to curb its intervention in the rest of the Middle East, and to deter Iran from abandoning the nuclear agreement in the years ahead.

“I think we’re going to have to hold at risk the nuclear program in the future — in other words, make plans now of what we’d do if in fact they restarted,” he said.

There’s one big problem with Mattis’s nomination: the law that prohibits a former military officer from being secretary of Defense unless he or she has been retired for at least seven years.

It’s a sensible law, meant to guarantee the principle of civilian control, and it’s only been waived once before, for George C. Marshall in 1950. Marshall was an extraordinary case: the chief of staff who organized victory in World War II and then served as a successful secretary of State.

This is an extraordinary case for a different reason: Trump needs Cabinet officers who are willing to stand up to him and push back when he’s wrong. Mattis has already done that.

And Trump needs someone to balance the influence of his other favorite general, the volcanic Michael Flynn, who will be his national security advisor.

Mattis and Flynn, who know each other well, are likely to go head-to-head on a long list of issues. (According to one report, Flynn wasn’t thrilled with the idea of nominating Mattis, who outranked him four stars to three. Generals remember details like that.)

Trump’s infatuation with generals — he boasted frequently in the campaign about their support — sometimes takes on an odd fanboy tone. (“Mad Dog!”)

But in this case, it might be a good thing. When Mad Dog Mattis tells Trump that blowing up the Iran nuclear agreement, weakening alliances, bombing civilians or reinstating torture is a bad idea, the boss might actually listen.

OBAMA SENDING 600 MORE US TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIL (PRAY)

PRES OBAMA SENDING 600 MORE US TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIL IN IRAQ:

IS 600 ENOUGH?

PLEASE PRAY FOR OUR TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILIES.

Sources: NY Times, YouTube

**** U.S. to Send 600 More Troops to Iraq to Help Retake Mosul From ISIS

WASHINGTON — President Obama has authorized sending an additional 600 American troops to Iraq to assist Iraqi forces in the looming battle to take back the city of Mosul from the Islamic State, United States officials said on Wednesday.

The announcement means that there will soon be 5,000 American troops in Iraq, seven years after the Obama administration withdrew all American troops from the country. Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, has criticized both Mr. Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, for that decision.

Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter, traveling in New Mexico, said the additional troops would help with logistics as well as providing intelligence for Iraqi security forces in the fight for Mosul. Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week that Iraqi forces would be ready to retake the city by early October.

“These are military forces that will be deployed to intensify the strategy that’s in place, to support Iraqi forces as they prepare for an offensive,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said Wednesday.

Administration officials insisted that the deployment was consistent with Mr. Obama’s policy not to commit American ground forces again in Iraq. Mr. Obama, who vowed to end the Iraq war in his 2008 presidential campaign, has been wary of increasing the number of American troops there. The officials said the Americans would be there to assist Iraqi and Kurdish forces, who they said were leading the operations to retake the Islamic State’s remaining territory.

Mrs. Clinton said at an NBC News forum on national security this month that she would not put ground troops in Iraq “ever again.” Mr. Trump said in Marchthat he would deploy up to 30,000 American troops in the Middle East to defeat the Islamic State.

Pentagon Recommends Combat Zone Pay Cut For Enlisted Troops! Are You Kidding Me? That Is Wrong!

Choosing to cut Combat Zone Pay for Enlisted Soldiers who already earn way too little for their Duty, is just plain WRONG!

Such a Pay cut will cause many Military Families to be Financially Deprived, go Hungry & some to be Evicted or Suffer Foreclosures.

Congress Needs to get its Act together because America's Enlisted Troops deserve a Pay Increase NOT a Severe Pay Cut.

Especially NOT a Pay Cut that will Adversely Impact the Families of Enlisted Troops.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Review recommends combat pay be based on level of danger

The days of American troops living on luxurious bases, hanging out at the coffee shop, attending dance parties and still earning full combat pay may be coming to an end.

The Pentagon is considering changes to combat pay that could result in a tiered system, based on how much danger the service member is actually in.

The new recommendations come from an independent review ordered by President Barack Obama in 2010, the Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation.

The review concluded that "the relationship between combat compensation and the degree of danger to which a member is exposed has eroded."

In fact, the reviewers found evidence that troops exposed to the most danger in many cases were receiving the smallest benefit.

"Linking reward to risk is the principal justification for combat compensation," the review stated.

A major problem with the current combat pay system is its relationship to the IRS tax code.

Service members in combat zones are allowed to exclude income for tax purposes. The report found that junior members, especially those with with families, have little income and pay little in income taxes. Therefore, income exclusion gives them very little benefit.

More senior enlisted troops can exclude their income and receive a greater tax benefit. Officers can exclude nearly $7,800 a month during the time they are deployed to a combat zone.

The report concluded that this exclusion gives the greatest benefit to more highly ranked service members, even though they may be much farther from actual danger than lower-ranking troops.

The report recommends that combat pay be restructured "so that those who are exposed to the greatest danger receive higher compensation, regardless of grade." It recommends replacing the income exclusion with a tax credit.

The reviewers also recommend increasing "hostile fire pay" so that it surpasses "imminent danger pay." Both award troops $225 a month, but "hostile fire" indicates an area where troops could be exposed to enemy fire, whereas "imminent danger" is simply presence in a combat zone.

As part of its findings, the report cited a 2011 opinion piece in the Washington Post in which Capt. Michael Cummings wrote, "I didn't deserve my combat pay."

Cummings described the living conditions at Victory Base Complex in Iraq, "The water was always warm. The chow hall had a Caesar salad bar, a sandwich bar, an ice cream freezer, and shrimp & steak Fridays. My personal room had a working air conditioning unit and internet connection.

VBC hosted multiple PXs, coffee shops and nightly dance parties. I could buy pillows, microwaves, televisions or any video game."

Defense Department officials are still reviewing the results and have yet to make final decisions on whether to adopt the changes.

Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said, "We'll review the QRMC recommendations. The recommendations do not convey the department's official position but rather provide alternatives for the department to consider."

Nations such as Japan, Germany and Australia already have a risk-based tier system of pay.


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

Pentagon Spending vs Congress: Broken Gov't & War Funding

Congress Wars: Battle for the defense budget

In what is shaping up to be a classic congressional right vs. left fight over defense and war funding, both the House and Senate are gearing up to battle over some expected and not-so-expected items in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.

On Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee passed its version of the bill, showing its hand to members of the House of Representatives on what it felt should be authorized for military spending.

The act authorizes spending limits and sets defense policy, but it does not actually appropriate the funds.

The committee version must still pass a full Senate vote. The House signed off on its bill this month. While a date has yet to be announced, both the final House and Senate versions will go through extensive negotiations to hammer out a final version of the legislation, expected in the fall.

Both bills have numerous amendments that will be debated and fought over in the coming months. Keep an eye on these five if you like political fireworks.

Clash of the cash

The first battle will come as no surprise, as the House and Senate versions put out two totally different bottom lines for Pentagon funding. The Democrat-run Senate version, announced Thursday, gives the military $631.4 billion under the president's trimmed-down Pentagon budget. It received full bipartisan support with a unanimous vote to pass it out of the committee.

But the House version passed this month comes in at $642.5 billion. Although it does not seem to be much more than the Senate version, it is over the president's Pentagon budget request, and it triggered a veto threat by the White House.

The measure adds $4 billion to the Pentagon budget, which is already targeted for almost $500 billion in cuts over the next 10 years to help reduce the nation's deficit.

Missile mess

Within the House version is a hotly debated missile defense shield for the East Coast of the United States.

The bill obligates $100 million to plan for the system, which is to be fully established by 2015. The cost of the entire system will be well into the billions.

Proponents, like Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, an ardent missile defense backer, say there is a need for the shield to protect against threats from Russia or Iran.

But House Democrats and Pentagon leaders who are against the plan say there is no threat to the eastern seaboard.

"Today's threats do not require an East Coast missile field, and we do not have plans to do so," Gen. Charles Jacoby, commander of U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command, told Congress this year.

On Thursday, the Senate chose not to put money toward the plan and instead called for a study on the missile plan, which U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Massachusetts, called the "East Coast fantasy 'Star Wars' base."

Combat for all

Another key item to watch for is how both sides address an amendment in the Senate version that would allow women in the U.S. military to fight alongside their male counterparts on the front lines of war.

The provision, added to the bill last week by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, orders the Pentagon to devise a plan to let women have an active combat role on the battlefield. As of now, the Pentagon bars women from joining the ranks of front-line combat troops.

Last week, the Pentagon announced that it was relaxing parts of the policy of barring women from direct combat positions. Gillibrand's provision would direct the Pentagon to develop plans to remove all of the regulations and open every combat position to female troops.

While the House National Defense Authorization Act does not have a similar provision, there is a separate bill pending in the House of Representatives that could be added to the final version of the bill when both sides come to the negotiating table.

"Though the Pentagon has taken some small steps to remove restrictions on female service, they have not yet made a real commitment to a formal repeal. It's time to do what is right and recognize these women for what they do every day in Afghanistan and around the world," said Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-California, who introduced the bill in the House.

Abortion debate

What is sure to be a hot-button issue in the coming months is a provision in the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act, lifting the ban on the Department of Defense paying for abortions in cases of rape or incest.

The measure was added by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-New Hampshire, a member of the Armed Services Committee, and had bipartisan support in the committee.

"This is about equity," Shaheen said. "Civilian women who depend on the federal government for health insurance - whether they are postal workers or Medicaid recipients - have the right to access affordable abortion care if they are sexually assaulted. It is only fair that the thousands of brave women in uniform fighting to protect our freedoms are treated the same."

"It is an outrage and a national security risk that the women in our military do not have the same basic protections for reproductive health care as women across the U.S.," said Gillibrand, a co-sponsor of the amendment.

Quietly, staffers on the Hill say they fully expect fight between the left and right, especially with some members who face re-election in the fall.

But officials familiar with the issue on the Hill say it may not be an issue at all come negotiation time.

"It's a perennial issue. Almost every year, a similar provision is added, and every time it gets eliminated somewhere in the negotiation process," according to one Hill aide who was not authorized to speak ahead of the negotiations.

The problem with Pakistan

In one of the more unusual pieces of the Senate's National Defense Authorization Act, senators agreed to withhold Pakistan's part of a $1.75 billion aid package because of outrage over the imprisonment of a Pakistani doctor who helped with U.S. efforts to pinpoint Osama bin Laden in last year's deadly raid as well as the continued closure of NATO supply routes into and out of Afghanistan.

The provision calls for the aid package to be conditional on Defense Secretary Leon Panetta certifying that Pakistan opens the supply lines, no longer detains Dr. Shakil Afridi and is not supporting terrorist groups.

On Thursday, another bill in the Senate Appropriations Committee also withheld aid to Pakistan for similar reasons.

When asked whether there was a coordinated effort on the Hill to punish Pakistan through legislation, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said there was not, but there was a lot of anger on the Hill over these issues.

"What it shows is a common outrage, a common response to just about every place you can look," Levin said.

The House bill passed before the outrage in Congress erupted over Pakistan, so it does not contain any similar language.

So as Congress rages about Pakistan this week, it will be interesting to see whether that momentum holds and the Senate Armed Services Committee language stays in the final version of the bill, expected to be voted on by both chambers later this year.


Sources: CNN, Russia Today, Youtube

Israel Urged Not To Strike Iran! But What Are Israel's Options? Iran's Nukes & War Games

Pentagon Finds Perils for U.S. if Israel Were to Strike Iran


A classified war simulation held this month to assess the American military’s capabilities to respond to an Israeli attack on Iran forecast that the strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead, according to American officials.

The officials said the so-called war game was not designed as a rehearsal for American military action — and they emphasized that the exercise’s results were not the only possible outcome of a real-world conflict.

But the game has raised fears among top American planners that it may be impossible to preclude American involvement in any escalating confrontation with Iran, the officials said. In the debate among policy makers over the consequences of any possible Israeli attack, that reaction may give stronger voice to those within the White House, Pentagon and intelligence community who have warned that a strike could prove perilous for the United States.

The results of the war game were particularly troubling to Gen. James N. Mattis, who commands all American forces in the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia, according to officials who either participated in the Central Command exercise or who were briefed on the results and spoke on condition of anonymity because of its classified nature. When the exercise had concluded earlier this month, according to the officials, General Mattis told aides that an Israeli first strike would be likely to have dire consequences across the region and for United States forces there.

The two-week war game, called Internal Look, played out a narrative in which the United States found it was pulled into the conflict after Iranian missiles struck a Navy warship in the Persian Gulf, killing about 200 Americans, according to officials with knowledge of the exercise. The United States then retaliated by carrying out its own strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

The initial Israeli attack was assessed to have set back the Iranian nuclear program by roughly a year, and the subsequent American strikes did not slow the Iranian nuclear program by more than an additional two years. However, other Pentagon planners have said that America’s arsenal of long-range bombers, refueling aircraft and precision missiles could do far more damage to the Iranian nuclear program — if President Obama were to decide on a full-scale retaliation.

The exercise was designed specifically to test internal military communications and coordination among battle staffs in the Pentagon, Tampa, where the headquarters of the Central Command is located, and in the Persian Gulf in the aftermath of an Israeli strike. But the exercise was written to assess a pressing, potential, real-world situation.

In the end, the war game reinforced to military officials the unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of a strike by Israel, and a counterstrike by Iran, the officials said.

American and Israeli intelligence services broadly agree on the progress Iran has made to enrich uranium. But they disagree on how much time there would be to prevent Iran from building a weapon if leaders in Tehran decided to go ahead with one.

With the Israelis saying publicly that the window to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb is closing, American officials see an Israeli attack on Iran within the next year as a possibility. They have said privately that they believe that Israel would probably give the United States little or no warning should Israeli officials make the decision to strike Iranian nuclear sites.

Officials said that, under the chain of events in the war game, Iran believed that Israel and the United States were partners in any strike against Iranian nuclear sites and therefore considered American military forces in the Persian Gulf as complicit in the attack. Iranian jets chased Israeli warplanes after the attack, and Iranians launched missiles at an American warship in the Persian Gulf, viewed as an act of war that allowed an American retaliation.

Internal Look has long been one of Central Command’s most significant planning exercises, and is carried out about twice a year to assess how the headquarters, its staff and command posts in the region would respond to various real-world situations.

Over the years, it has been used to prepare for various wars in the Middle East. According to the defense Web site GlobalSecurity.org, military planners during the cold war used Internal Look to prepare for a move by the Soviet Union to seize Iranian oil fields. The American war plan at the time called for the Pentagon to march nearly six Army divisions north from the Persian Gulf to the Zagros Mountains of Iran to blunt a Soviet attack.

In December 2002, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who was the top officer at Central Command, used Internal Look to test the readiness of his units for the coming invasion of Iraq.

Many experts have predicted that Iran would try to carefully manage the escalation after an Israeli first strike in order to avoid giving the United States a rationale for attacking with its far superior forces.

Thus, it might use proxies to set off car bombs in world capitals or funnel high explosives to insurgents in Afghanistan to attack American and NATO troops. While using surrogates might, in the end, not be enough to hide Iran’s instigation of these attacks, the government in Tehran could at least publicly deny all responsibility.

Some military specialists in the United States and in Israel who have assessed the potential ramifications of an Israeli attack believe that the last thing Iran would want is a full-scale war on its territory. Thus, they argue that Iran would not directly strike American military targets, whether warships in the Persian Gulf or bases in the region.

Their analysis, however, also includes the broad caveat that it is impossible to know the internal thinking of the senior Iranian leadership, and is informed by the awareness that even the most detailed war games cannot predict how nations and their leaders will react in the heat of conflict.

Yet these specialists continue their work, saying that any insight on how the Iranians will react to an attack will help determine whether the Israelis carry out a strike — and what the American position will be if they do.

Israeli intelligence estimates, backed by academic studies, have cast doubt on the widespread assumption that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would set off a catastrophic set of events like a regional conflagration, widespread acts of terrorism and sky-high oil prices.

“A war is no picnic,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israel Radio in November. But if Israel feels itself forced into action, the retaliation would be bearable, he said. “There will not be 100,000 dead or 10,000 dead or 1,000 dead. The state of Israel will not be destroyed.”


View Larger Map


Sources: Al JaZeera English, CNN, Youtube, Google Maps

Soldiers Urge Congress & Pentagon Officials' Help For PTSD-Related Illnesses (Fewer Deployments)

G.I.'s plea: Give troops with PTSD more help


The American soldier who allegedly shot and killed 16 Afghan civilians served three tours of duty in Iraq before serving in Afghanistan.

Some experts say U.S. troops are being stretched too thin - and it's having an effect.

The suspect in the rampage in Afghanistan was stationed here until a few months ago.

We talked to an active duty soldier here who says he worries that our military men and women are being stretched to their breaking points.

"It will get better and it will get easier, but you won't ever forget faces and things you saw; it becomes part of you," says Specialist Jared Enger.

He should be in Afghanistan right now, fighting alongside the very soldier suspected of killing 16 Afghan civilians.

"He's in the same brigade I'm in," Enger notes. "He's in a unit I've done work with, so it's very well someone I could have crossed paths with and done some training with."

Enger spent two tours in Iraq - nearly 27 months of combat - during which he saw one of his best friends die right in front of him.

Like hundreds of others here at Joint Base Lewis McChord, Enger was diagnosed with chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

"I'm having nightmares. I'm having flashbacks. I'm really just feeling completely on edge," he said.

And news about how the base is responding to its soldiers' issues has been dismal.

Last month, the head of the base medical center was placed on administrative leave for reversing the diagnoses of nearly 300 soldiers who were told they had PTSD, allegedly to save the military money.

Jared was one of them. But his diagnosis has now been reinstated and he's about to be discharged. Yet, he worries about his fellow soldiers, who have endured more than a decade of deployments.

Thirty-four thousand soldiers have been deployed from Lewis McChord, and 20,000 of those have served multiple tours, deployed more than once to Iraq or Afghanistan, according to the base.

"Is two tours too much?" Enger asks. "Is five tours too much? Who's to say? There needs to be a better system in place."

He's particularly upset about this: In the past two years, officials at Lewis McChord said, 26 soldiers at the base have committed suicide.

"Something like that should never happen, and the only way it's not going to happen is with guys getting the help they need," said Enger.

Members of Congress are now looking into how those PTSD issues have been handled here at the base.

As for Jared, he told us that, if he could, he would prefer to be in Afghanistan, because being in a battle zone is now where he feels most normal.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, CNN, Google Maps

East Coast Quake Shakes Up Pentagon, Capitol Hill

Quake hits near Washington, D.C.

An earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 5.8 struck near Washington, D.C., the U.S.Geological Survey said.

The epicenter was in Virginia. The U.S.G.S is saying that

The quake was felt in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, New York, and on Martha's Vineyard where President Barack Obama is vacationing. Cell phone service has been disrupted in New York City where parts of Manhattan have been evacuated.

"Everybody was told to take the stairs," Wolf Blitzer said, speaking live at 2 p.m. E.T. from CNN's D.C. bureau.

The Pentagon has been evacuated, CNN's Barbara Starr reports. "When the building began shaking rather violently, hundreds of people began streaming out," she said, because many people thought that the building was under attack. Starr was standing in the Pentagon's press office when the roof started to shake.


View Larger Map

Sources: AP, CNN, Daily Beast, U.S.Geological Survey, Youtube, Google Maps

Navy SEALs Crash Huge Blow To U.S. Forces; Win For Taliban! NATO Recovers Wreckage (Conspiracy?)

NATO Crash: Communities Mourn Loss of Troops Killed in Afghanistan


American communities are mourning the loss of 30 U.S. troops who were killed when Afghan insurgents shot down a helicopter carrying the most elite forces in the US military -- Navy SEALs along with Air Force and Army personnel, U.S. officials said.

Saturday's crash occurred near a Taliban stronghold in Wardak province in Afghanistan.

On board the Chinook helicopter, there were 30 Americans -- including 22 SEALs, 8 Afghans and a dog trained specifically for special operations.

U.S. forces were engaged in a firefight on the ground and the helicopter was on its way to help, when it was shot down probably by a rocket propelled grenade.

Most of the 22 SEALS were part of SEAL Team 6, the heroic unit that carried out the raid on Osama Bin Laden's compound in May.

However none of those who actually took part in that raid were believed to be on the helicopter.

U.S. special operations teams carry out up to a dozen missions a day in Afghanistan.

But since 9/11 there have been 32 SEALS killed, but 22 in one day is devastating. There are just 300 men in SEAL Team six.

After the crash, the forces that were involved in the firefight "broke contact" with the enemy so they could go provide perimeter security for the crash site, the official said.



Additional forces were then sent to secure the crash site.

It's unclear how far away the helicopter was from the initial firefight when it went down and unclear how the troops in the firefight got to the crash location.

Although the Taliban have claimed to have shot the helicopter down, U.S. officials have only identified the attackers as insurgents.

On July 25, a Chinook was hit by a rocket propelled grenade fired by the Taliban. It launched in the belly of the aircraft which made a hard landing and only two soldiers were injured in that attack but this time all on board were killed.



The last worst one-day U.S. casuality record in Afghanistan was on June 28, 2005 when 16 U.S. soldiers were killed in Kunar province after a helicopter was shot down by Taliban insurgents.

President Obama offered his thoughts and prayers to those killed in the crash.

"Their deaths are a reminder of the extraordinary sacrifices made by the men and women of our military and their families, including all who have served in Afghanistan," Obama said in a statement.

Town Remembers Loss

In the tight knit navy town of Virginia Beach, Va. the loss is felt by everyone.

"It's high risk, but you know it's the call of duty for your country," said Joseph Villasenor, a former army member.

It is a far cry from the jubilation that swept the community after Bin Laden was killed by their hometown heroes.

Even here, the identities of the Seal Team Six are kept secret but now their names will likely become public under the worst of circumstances.

"There's a lot of seals that come from here. It's weird to think that someone you see on the street could be gone right now," said resident Derek Carter.

Losing 22 men all at once comes as a sharp blow to families and friends of the navy SEALs, like Geneva Vaughn, the grandmother of Aaron Vaughn, one of the men killed in the crash.

"I'm very proud of him. He was such a good boy and he loved his country…and I talked to him on his birthday he said granny he said 'don't worry about me I'm not afraid," she said.



Recovery effort under-way after NATO crash in eastern Afghanistan

NATO recovery teams combed through the wreckage of a downed CH-47 Chinook in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday, the site of the worst single-day loss of American lives since the start of the Afghan war.

"They're just trying recover everything from the crash at this point," said Lt. Col. Jimmie Cummings, a spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

Thirty U.S. service members died early Saturday when their helicopter crashed during an operation against Taliban insurgents, officials said.

Among the 25 U.S. special operations forces killed in Wardak province -- who died while reinforcing other troops in the area -- were 22 Navy SEALS, considered to be among America's most elite warriors.

The majority of the slain Navy SEALs belonged to the same covert unit that conducted the May raid that killed Osama bin Laden, though they were not the same men, a U.S. military official said.

In all, 38 people died in the crash, including one civilian translator and seven Afghan commandos, NATO reported.

The Taliban has taken responsibility for the attack, claiming to have downed the helicopter with a rocket-propelled grenade.

Provincial council head Mohammad Hazrat Janan also said insurgents used a rocket-propelled grenade in the attack, though the actual type of weapon is still unclear.

While military officials in Afghanistan have not confirmed that an attack brought down the helicopter, they have acknowledged it was operating in an area rife with insurgent activity.

Afghan officials say the craft crashed in Wardak's Tangi Valley, a corridor located roughly 60 miles southwest of the Afghan capital and situated amid mountainous and rocky terrain.

Tangi village elders reported that insurgents shot at the craft when it was returning from an operation that left eight insurgents dead, according to Janan.

NATO declined to comment on the details of the operation or the circumstances of the crash.

The specifics of the incident were first made public by way of a written statement from Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

"It was amazing to me that the first details came from the presidential palace," said Baktash Siawash, a parliament member from Kabul. "At the same time, we didn't hear anything from NATO."

Siawash said Karzai's swift release of the crash details amounted to helping the Taliban quickly claim responsibility for the incident.

The Afghan president has come under increasingly criticism by anti-Taliban lawmakers over his willingness to negotiate with insurgent leadership, but has traditionally said that he is endeavoring to bring an end the near decade-long conflict.

A presidential spokesman dismissed Siawash's allegations as "nonsense," saying Karzai's initial statement on the crash was meant to express condolences over the loss of American life.

Meanwhile, Karzai called a security meeting of his top advisors Sunday to discuss the incident, according to a statement from his office.

He is scheduled to speak with U.S. President Barack Obama, the statement said. It is not clear when that conversation is scheduled to take place.

Reflecting on the sobering loss, President Obama said the deaths were "a reminder of the extraordinary sacrifices made by the men and women of our military and their families, including all who have served in Afghanistan."

Among those killed was Aaron Carson Vaughn, 30, his grandmother told CNN Saturday night. She called him a brave warrior and gentle man.

Geneva Carson Vaughn of Union City, Tennessee, said Aaron lived with his wife and two small children in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

The SEAL told her in June not to worry about his well-being.

"He said 'I'm not afraid. Because I know where I am going if something happens to me.'," she said.

"He is with the Lord now," Vaughn added. "I will see him again someday."

The U.S. deaths come as NATO is drawing down and handing over security control to national forces. Some 10,000 U.S. troops are scheduled to depart by year's end, with the full draw-down expected to take place by the end of 2014.

Newly minted U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker, pledged no permanent bases inside the war-torn country, but has suggested that American military commitments to Afghanistan could extend beyond the draw-down date.

The crash dealt a heavy blow to U.S. special forces, a select group that requires years of training and brings operational experience that's not easily replaced.

Their deaths have also raised concerns among Kabul lawmakers over the perceived strength of the insurgency.

"This shows the Taliban are now more mobilized than before," said Khalid Pashton, a parliament member from Kandahar province, the traditional heartland of the Taliban. "Now there is an organized play in Afghanistan that seems (to suggest) that U.S. forces will soon leave."

Meanwhile, officials are being especially tight-lipped because recovery operations -- which began immediately following the crash -- are still under way and body identifications and family notifications are just beginning, a U.S. military official said.

The U.S. Embassy in Kabul said ISAF "is still assessing the circumstances that resulted in these deaths."

Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Zahir Azimi said it's too early to say if the Taliban caused the crash. He called for an investigation.

"Information is still coming in about this incident. I think it's important that we allow investigators to do their work before jumping to too many conclusions," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"It's also important that we respect the process of notifying family members, no matter how long that takes."

There are 150,000 ISAF forces in Afghanistan, including just under 100,000 from the United States -- the largest NATO presence in the region since the U.S.-led war began in 2001.


View Larger Map

Sources: ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Youtube, Google Maps

Bob Gates Predicts Moammar Gadhafi's Fall; Taliban Talks (Videos)

View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Google Maps

Gen. Martin Dempsey Appointed New Joint Chiefs Of Staff Chairman

What Better Person To Help Transition Our Proud Men & Women Currently Serving In Uniform From A War State Of Mind In Afghanistan To Serving In A Non-Combat Environment, Than General Martin Dempsey.

Like His Professional Predecessor Gen. Colin Powell, Gen. Dempsey Loves Being A Soldier, Loves Serving His Country, Loves Being A Leader.

Today President Barack Obama Once Again Made An Excellent Decision As It Relates To Keeping Our Nation Safe.

First He Appoints General Petraeus To Head The CIA, Next He Appoints Leon Panetta To Head The Pentagon & Now General Martin Dempsey Has Been Tapped As The New Joint Chiefs Of Staff Chairman.

I'd Say Such Intelligent Decisions Proves Pres. Obama Really Knows What He's Doing When It Comes To Selecting The Right Kind Of Leadership.

"Iron Sharpens Iron!"

i.e., Great Leaders Appoint & Associate With Great Leaders!

Congrats Gen. Dempsey!

VOTE OBAMA IN 2012!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama nominates Army head to serve as new Joint Chiefs chairman

President Barack Obama on Monday nominated Gen. Martin Dempsey, the relatively new Army chief of staff, to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The term of the current chairman, Adm. Michael Mullen, ends in September.

Obama also nominated Adm. James Winnefeld, the current head of the U.S. Northern Command, to serve as vice chairman. He tapped Gen. Ray Odierno to replace Dempsey as the Army's chief of staff.

The president, speaking at the White House, urged the Senate to confirm the three men "as swiftly as possible" in order to help ensure a "seamless" Pentagon transition.

Obama praised Dempsey as one of the country's most "respected and combat-tested generals."

"I expect him to push all our forces to keep adapting and innovating," Obama said. "We will provide what it takes to achieve our objectives in the current fight."

Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates released a statement praising Dempsey, Winnefeld, and Odierno for having "excelled in key command and staff roles" and possessing "the right mix of intellectual heft, moral courage, and strategic vision."

If confirmed by the Senate, Dempsey would be in the key position of being Obama's senior military adviser overseeing the drawdown of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He would also work with incoming Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who still needs to be confirmed by the Senate, in establishing priorities for cutting defense spending.

Dempsey has extensive combat experience. He served as the commander of the 1st Armored Division in Baghdad in 2003, and then helped train Iraqi security forces in a subsequent tour of duty in Iraq. He also has served as acting commander of the U.S. Central Command overseeing U.S. military operations in the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Central Asia.

The selection of Dempsey is unusual partly because he took over as head of the Army only on April 11. In that brief period of time, Dempsey has earned strong praise for what is considered to be his outgoing personality. Among other things, the general receives a list of soldiers both in the United States and overseas every week and calls them to get their direct opinions on life in the Army.

He spent last Friday in Washington meeting with children who have lost parents and other relatives in war-time military service.

He has also gained attention for his long-standing habit of beginning some of his public speaking events by singing songs such as "New York, New York." On his Facebook page he recently asked troops to offer their suggestions for music he could play at events where he is speaking.

Dempsey's sense of humor has opened him up for some ribbing as well, like at the ceremony when he took command of the Army.

"His rise to this great height is yet another one of those classic American immigrant success stories," said Army Secretary John McHugh during official remarks. "One can only imagine how different his life might have been had his family not decided to leave New Jersey and move across the river to New York state."

Gen. James Cartwright, a four-star Marine who currently is vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, had been the perceived front runner to replace Mullen. But in a 30-minute meeting with Obama before the president left for his recent trip to Europe, Cartwright was told he would not get the job, according to a Defense Department official with direct knowledge of the meeting.

The official declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of discussing White House personnel meetings involving the president.

Cartwright is now expected to submit his retirement papers and conclude his term as vice chairman as scheduled in early August.

Cartwright had long been considered a White House favorite, but had run afoul of other senior officers inside the Pentagon who felt he more than once went behind their backs in offering the president military recommendations and advice on a range of issues, including lower troop levels in Afghanistan.

The Defense Department official who is familiar with Cartwright's thinking says the general was aware of these criticisms, and only offered recommendations when asked by the president.

"There was an impression created he wasn't a team player," said the official, who was offering a defense of Cartwright's actions

"Gen. Cartwright never believed he was a deputy. He believed he had a legal and moral obligation to give the president his best military advice," the source said. "He is not obligated to provide the same advice as everybody else."

The official acknowledged the widespread view many had, however, that Cartwright plays his cards close to the vest inside the Pentagon and often shared little with colleagues about his real thinking.

The official also noted that neither Gates nor Mullen had recommended Cartwright for the job as chairman, which meant his nomination by the White House would have been difficult to justify to Congress.

Spokesmen for both declined to publicly comment on any aspect of the chairmanship issue.

Cartwright had also been the subject of an investigation by the department's inspector general over whistleblower allegations of improper conduct with a junior female officer who fell asleep intoxicated in his hotel room during a business trip. He was cleared of wrongdoing by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, but the official said Cartwright felt he was the still the subject of a "whispering campaign" after that.


Sources: Army Tradoc, CNN, MSNBC, Wikipedia, Youtube