On the left we have Colonel Aaron Bank, the father of US Army Special Forces. On the right we have Colonel Arthur "Bull" Simons, probably the greatest leader of irregular troops in the history of the US Army. In the middle is the regimental color of the 10th Group, 1st Special Forces Regiment. I had the honor of serving on Simons' staff in South America in the mid '60s.
Below we have the eloquent and much needed wisdom of our friend Sidney Smith. pl
"As God is my witness…or at least according to Wiki…Ms. Kim Kagan heads something called the Institute for the Study of War. You cannot make this stuff up. If it were fiction, no one would believe it. And by just looking at the photo, it is obvious we are entering a new act in the great theatre of the absurd played out on the world stage. The strategic goals of the neoconservatives are at complete odds with the tactics described in Gant’s essay. The two are mutual exclusive. No overlap. Yet Fred and Kim — who, in the photo, look like they are walking to their sailboat docked at Marina Del Rey — are the ones who advised McCrystal. The neoconservative goal is to exploit the traditional language of COIN to justify deploying as many US soldiers as possible to Muslim land. Moreover, neoconservatives believe that it is extremely important that the Muslim world view neo-COIN as an occupation, much in the same vein as the IDF. Western occupation of Muslim land writ large. As Bibi said after 9-11, “We are all Israelis now”. That is the neoconservative goal. It is stated, admitted, and on the record. Once Israel launches a pre-emptive strike against Iran (with or without the USM, doesn't matter), then those US soldiers deployed in Muslim lands will act as a buffer to Israel actions, as Iran will strike out against the USM in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Then the USG will carry out the goal of Likud Zionism, which is the inverse of the title of Gant’s article. The goal of Likud Zionism is to destroy one tribe at a time, under a Jacobin approach. How can such analysis be wrong? Yet, no one at the Pentagon will say one word and, God forbid, certainly not under their own name. Why not? Why is the Pentagon standing up for Fred and Kim and not Gant? Yeah, we know the answer. It just whispers in the mind. Hate to say it, but the same whispers occurred in the early 1970’s, among the Scot Irish, African Americans and others. I saw it firsthand, at least in the South. And I am not talking about the Jane Fonda crowd, because they hated her too. Petraeus and the other generals do not understand. They are too isolated from the real world, just like Jeffery Goldberg, James Woolsey, and others. I think the brainier neoconservative Jacobins do understand, and they will successfully exploit to their advantage the rising anger of Americans that will occur in the chaos after an attack on Iran. They will justify using weapons of mass destruction (Sherman’s march through Georgia — 21st century application) to end "the war" quickly. Kagan’s greatest threat is from someone like Gant. Why? Because as God is my witness…or at least according to Wiki — Fred Kagan looks like a walking example of the negative aspects of the “Puer aeternus”(speaks volumes about the wife as well…just look at the photo). But, more than that, the last thing the neoconservatives want to see is Gant and his crowd winning over tribes, one at time. Ultimately the Gant approach threatens Likud Zionism to its very core, as the post 67 goal of Likud Zionism is to destroy the Muslim world one tribe at a time (invoking Lincoln and Sherman to justify the destruction of a civilization). In the Kagan — and therefore Pentagon — mindset, Gant’s way of thinking must be repressed. If not repressed, then eliminated.
Sidney O. Smith III"