Well, tonight is the night. President Trump will officially own the war after his 9PM address to the nation tonight for better or worse. Will he pull us out? Will he create a mercenary army? Will it be a few thousand more troops and status quo? Will it be a drastically different strategy to achieve a decisive victory? No matter what the president decides, it will be our best window yet into whether or not the Deep State has seized full control of the White House.
Here is what we do know going into the address. First, the US has for all intents and purposes at this point strategically lost the war in Afghanistan. Second, the status quo plus more troops will not change anything other than the final cost in bodies and treasure. Third, without a deliberate effort to secure the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and at minimum isolate Taliban sanctuary in Pakistan any strategy will fail before it begins. Fourth, anything less than a concrete plan to decisively win in Afghanistan is an admission the Deep State (i.e. Pentagon) has taken full control of White House policy.
As for me, I would like to see one of two things after clearly outlining what we are doing in Afghanistan and what end state we are trying to achieve. Here is the general outline of what should be desirable. Option A: Cut and seal the Afghanistan-Pakistan border using NATO troops, annihilate Taliban sanctuary in Pakistan, continue to enable the Afghans to mop up the Taliban trapped in Afghanistan, freeze aid to Pakistan until they cut ties with China and turn over Al Qaeda’s remaining leadership, and incorporate Afghanistan’s neighbors to include Iran to put the pieces back together again. Option B: If we will not do A, then we need to immediately pull out of all troops, destroy any remaining military gear and equipment in country we haven’t already given to the Taliban, and cut aid to Pakistan.
Stand-by for analysis after the President’s brief.
By Guiles Hendrik
August 21, 2017
President Donald Trump may have gotten a few things very right regarding the on-going war in Afghanistan if reports are accurate. President Trump has apparently called the military to task in Afghanistan and threatened to clean house. President Trump suggested he would fire the top general in charge of US troops in Afghanistan, General John Nicholson and accused the military of giving up ground to the Taliban. “We aren’t winning,” the president reportedly said. “We are losing.” Further, the President demanded better strategies after rejecting that status quo the Pentagon tried to sell him.
Coming out of this meeting, the message should be clear to the military’s top brass. President Trump is not happy with the military’s lack of progress and won’t accept defeat. He is demanding a new strategy and has correctly recognized high-priced consultants and insiders are charlatans that don’t have the right answers. He needs to look beyond the “Swamp” for a new strategy. Fortunately, if President Trump and his NSC are receptive, there are a number of very good strategies that could still win the war that don’t require massive troop surges or total annihilation of the country.
President Trump need not look further than one of the single best research documents compiled to date on defeating insurgencies. The research, conducted by Jonathan Owen, a former military officer, is available in book form under the title #Fail: Why the US Lost the War in Afghanistan. Owen’s research analyzes 100 years of named insurgencies in a way no single think tank or intelligence agency has remotely approached. Owen’s book destroys the commonly held myths related to counterinsurgency and proves why the senior military establishment has been derelict in their duties. It demonstrates through overwhelming evidence that the “strategy” of training and advising never achieves decisive wins and only correlates with the defeat of the counterinsurgent. Contrary to a failed training and advising strategy, the study provides irrefutable evidence that identifies the single greatest factor in defeating an insurgency is denial of sanctuary, which in Afghanistan, translates to border security. Not satisfied with simply identifying the problems with the current US military strategy, Owen’s research lays out an actual clear cut plan for decisive victory that could be implemented today. In short, if President Trump wants a real plan to win in Afghanistan, he should make the study mandatory reading for the military just after firing his top generals. The point would be made and the war would be won.
By Guiles Hendrik
August 9, 2017
Most of you have read a lot of articles and reports lately concerning escalating protests and violence across the country. Many of you are rightfully asking how far this will go. I have seen a number of reports that essentially dismiss the possibility of an armed rebellion beginning in America. They are wrong. People need to wake up. The United State has already passed through the proto-revolutionary phase and is now involved in an active low level insurgency that has the potential to quickly spread should the proper conditions present. The question isn’t whether or not a violent revolution could start in the US. The question is how bad will it get. Make no mistake; we are at war with a violent, leftist insurgency right now.
Let’s begin with a quick history lesson. President Obama began his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers. Read more
The following summary of recent world events is decidedly negative. This is not due to overt pessimism as much as the facts are just plain bad. In fact, I didn’t even include events like the effects of Hurricane Mathew, the attack on our warship off the coast of Yemen, and the assassination of more police around the US. The world is not getting any safer and indicators are all pointing to things worsening as we move into late fall and winter. The following are major events you should be taking note of with short comments.
- Situation in Syria: Syrian government forces backed by Iran and Russia continue to pound Aleppo and are nearing a strategic breakthrough. All actors in Syria recognize that if Assad is able to recapture Aleppo from the Islamic extremists it will be the beginning of the end for Washington’s terrorist proxies in Syria. As such, there is panic from Doha to Washington. The terrorist coalition knows that it is now or never for major intervention, which may force the White House to order direct strikes against the Syrian regime, which undoubtedly will be countered by Russian retaliation. This creates the potential for a rapid outbreak of a major regional war that could go global. We have effectively arrived at the point I have repeatedly forecasted would occur in Syria where either Moscow or Washington accepts a massive strategic policy defeat or there is a major war…perhaps both. This is inescapable at this point. The best case scenario is if the US backs out by aligning with Russia to defeat ISIL and negotiate a peace deal that leaves the regime in place for now. This is highly unlikely and if Hillary Clinton is elected, all but impossible.
- I am forecasting that the US will continue to spread false anti-Assad and anti-Russian propaganda to drum up war sentiment in the US to prepare the public for the announcement airstrikes against Syrian military positions. If the neo-cons within the establishment get their way the air strikes will happen, but there will be an immediate cost to US forces. Russia will defend its positions on the ground and engage any US forces that directly threaten Russian lives and interests. In this event, it is possible we will witness the first combat losses of US Fifth Generation Fighters, which Washington is rightfully terrified will occur. The loss of these jets will show everyone how much superiority the US has lost against countries like China under Obama. This will jeopardize the multi-billion dollar acquisition program that has been riddled with corruption, failures, and delays. As such, it is far more likely Washington will lead with cruise missile and drone strikes that are easier to deny and hide if they fail to achieve their objectives, but are also much less likely to achieve decisive results.
Over the past two weeks, I have released a series on prepper relocation that completely changes the old conventional theories that drove prepper relocation strategies (See: http://www.lastminutesurvival.com/?s=prepper+relocation). The key takeaway you learned from the research is that you do not need to relocate to a remote region to survive. In fact, it is actually counterproductive to be too isolated. Now that you know relocation to a place like Idaho is no longer necessary and even counterproductive, where are the best places to relocate? The good news is that you have far greater options depending on what you are prepping for in light of the results of my research. In today’s conclusion to the five part series, I will introduce you to both domestic and international options that are readily available to anyone looking for a thorough, full spectrum relocation strategy that will work even under the most extreme situations. Read more