After a careful examination and analysis of the international and national situation and the major threats to the United States, I am recommending that President Trump begin using several of the Principles to secure America for the future. Mr. President, it is time to go on the offense, as you are doing in other areas like the economy, reducing regulations and providing employment for many Americans. Playing defense politically, in any way, will never defeat/overcome the Socialist Democrats and weak Republicans in the long run! Foreign threats are a different issue and will not be addressed here. The battle at our Border is a real war! The principles of war that I learned as a student during my studies at West Point, and later at the Army War College, provided me insights into the use of offense and defense in war and politics. Clausewitz in his book, “On War” has been very influential on military and political thinking.
The initial essay dealt with the tactics of combat and suggested the following general principles.
Clausewitz focuses on the importance of moral factors, making the best use of the few means available, as well as calmness and firmness, and without firm resolution no great results can be achieved with success.
· Discover how we may gain a preponderance of physical forces and material advantages at the decisive point.
· To calculate moral factors.
· Make the best use of the few means at our disposal.
· Never lack calmness and firmness…without this firm resolution, no great results can be achieved in the most successful war.
· Always have the choice between the most audacious and the most careful solution…no military leader has ever become great without audacity.
Based on the above, Clausewitz went on to suggest principles for tactics.
· The Defense
· The Offense
· The Use of Troops/Forces are more effective in a concentric rather than in a parallel attack; attack concentrically without having decisive superiority in an engagement.
· Always seek to envelop that part of the enemy
against which we direct our main attack
· I would also add the importance of using
strategic psychology in dealing with opponents.
Clausewitz also included in the essay general principles of
strategy by saying that Warfare has several main objects. The ones that are
starred should be considered and used by President Trump:
· To conquer and destroy the power of the enemy
· To take possession of his material and other sources of strength, and to direct our operations against the places where most of these resources are concentrated.*
· To gain public opinion, won through great
· Use our entire force with the utmost energy.*
· The decisive point of attack
· Surprise plays a much greater role in tactics
than in strategy.*
· An attack on the lines of communication takes
effect only very
slowly, while victory on the field of battle bears fruit
· In strategy, therefore, the side that is
surrounded by the enemy is
better off than the side which surrounds its opponent,
with equal or even weaker forces
· Be physically and morally superior. *
I am not in any way suggesting that military action options be advanced in the United States but for the President and his supporters to use these Principles as necessary to save the Republic from destruction.
By Paul E. Vallely (MG US Army – ret.), Chairman SUA
After the testimonies of Secretary Panetta, General Dempsey, and Hillary Clinton on the Benghazi tragedy, it appears the Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama was off duty and not available to make a hard decision to press the military Chain of Command to rescue Americans under attack. The cover up appears to be a White House order to “Stand Down” and not issue a rescue mission operational order. For over seven hours he did nothing; no communications with his National Security team, and then he flew to Las Vegas for a campaign stop. “Weakness and dithering and flying to Las Vegas the next day for celebrity fund-raising parties are somehow better.”
The testimony revealed that Obama stated to Panetta and Dempsey, “Do what you have to do.” Where was the order to execute a rescue mission NOW Mr. President? The investigation regarding the 9/11 al Qaeda raid on Benghazi and the deaths of four brave Americans began, but to date it has no end or acceptable findings, and provides no answers for the families of the four murdered Americans.
I have promised Charles Woods, Father of Ty Woods, and family, that at Stand up America, we will press this investigation to the end. Malfeasance and ineptitude borne from a foreign policy steeped in naiveté in the least and complete indifference to threat conditions provided by the Intelligence Community has degenerated into a massive cover up of the facts on the ground and is minimized by political corruption and ineptness by the National Security team. What we have had is myriad conflicting and/or changing stories and moving people and parts from all manner of sources, players, and decisions makers. We have internet rumors, official statements, hearings, in camera probes, an ARB report, talking heads ad nauseum, political spin and a very clear ‘circling of the wagons’ where blame encompasses all involved within the Obama circle of influence.
We have witnessed hearings that were more congratulatory than probative, and a steady parade of the changing of the guard. Facts cannot be disputed, yet access to facts has been impossible. The objective has been to obscure actions to prevent the ability to sift through the events, conjecture, political rhetoric, and the steady attempt to move beyond the elections and to the cabinet changes; especially by those of us without high clearance in ‘fly-over’ country.
The cumulative effect of all these facets is that one must suspend all manner of logic and reason to swallow the miasmic trail. This is precisely the point – there has been an obvious attempt to muddy the waters, ‘chill the mark’, and deflect focus. It expected the onlooker to be so confused they have to just look away, feel bad for the losses, and swallow that this is all a learning experience and rest assured that they will all try harder, now under newer administration.
The most cogent report to date on Benghazi was crafted by Senators Lieberman and Collins but it does not go deep enough into the weeds with regard to dereliction of duty, omissions, waivers, mission, objective, and names to hold responsible. We need to know without varnish, spin, and purposeful evasion what did and did not take place during the events as they unfolded, and an adult, clear minded understanding of what was at stake that prompted people to make poor and deadly decisions. We must first start with how the lines of communication would have unfolded, where decision making nodes occurred, what those decisions were, and why they were made.
Most important, where was the President? Was he ‘absent’? Absent, really? No, he just did not want to make himself available and have to make a difficult decision or have his actions traced with any paper trail. He seems to hide or not be available when the going gets tough? What, the President is unavailable during a crisis?
All citizens must ask the following questions and more, and demand a complete map to understand how our government is supposed to work at the highest levels in times of crisis by those who took the oath of office:
Career professionals in the CIA, the Military, the State Department, and other integral professionals including the National Security Team are trained and expected to ensure all Americans and USA interests are protected at all costs. To many, Benghazi was likely the apex of their respective careers to prove their worth and value. How could so many fail and hide the realities of terror attacks and threats and as one Senator asked who was in charge or supposed to be in charge?
The entire National Security apparatus was well aware of the events leading up to and including the attack(s) on Libya and beyond, so why the indifference and lack of any response?
Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey admitted during their testimony that there is no firehouse mentality, the question is why as this is outside the scope of Rules of Engagement and historical training?
The Benghazi annex was the largest CIA base in North Africa. The primary mission was to chase the illicit and illegal arms stream as well as the Middle East militia members. The question is how far reaching and effective was this mission for the end result to be terror attacks and death and how politically charged was this to the administration’s overall goals in the Magreb and Middle East and beyond?
Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey clearly both revealed that the meeting with Barack Obama on 9-11 was thirty minutes long and only 20 of the thirty minutes centered on Benghazi. Just how deep was the commitment of Obama to re-election versus Foreign Service officers in Libya and beyond as more than 20 locations had demonstrations or attacks against the United States during the week of 9-11?
Did Hillary Clinton sign a waiver to deny Marine security at both locations in Libya to include Tripoli and Benghazi despite Congressional laws against her actions (SECCA) perhaps in favor of government contractors like Blue Mountain or DynCorp and did the administration wave off rescue missions?
While General Ham was in Washington, DC. on 9-11-12, who gave orders for any and all actions or lack of actions in Benghazi including the dispatch and re-dispatch of surveillance drones and in favor of what?
Given that several hundred terror-related incidents occurred in Libya over the previous 24 months in Benghazi, where are the surveillance drone videos, and who assessed the conditions on the ground with regard to weapons and militias?
The members of the Accountability Review Board (ARB) were chosen by Hillary Clinton and with the classified and non-classified publication of the ARB, the matter of the terror attack has been insufficiently addressed. Congress gave Hillary Clinton many questions, both within and without the scope of her testimony. Where are her written responses and those members of the ARB that she promised after her testimony?
The weak link also appears to be the representations made by Hillary Clinton and others about the communications protocols in the event of a most critical incident (referred to as ‘critics’ in the community) in one of the ‘hottest’ spots on Earth. It is a matter of procedure that communications between selected embassies, if not all embassies, have an Imminent Danger Alert System that is directly ‘on-hook’ with at least four destinations which include: the White House Situation Room (WHSR), the State Department Operations Center, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Pentagon. ‘Critics’ are graded with an urgency status, and in the matter of Benghazi, the ladder of escalation included the top urgency status, calling for an immediate and urgent response.
Why haven’t we seen or heard the Situation Reports (SitReps) from the witnesses from Benghazi including all those located or functioning out of either or both the compound and annex? How many non-American people were there or co-located there? Due to the nature of the attack(s), how many people in total have died or been injured and for those that died, were autopsies performed? Why haven’t the estimated 32 survivors been interviewed; where and who are they?
Secretary Clinton correctly admitted that Marine detachments are assigned to diplomatic posts to guard classified material from being compromised. So why aren’t our elected Congressmen NOW publicly discussing the “Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999” (SECCA) over her decision not to have Marines at Benghazi? In the absence of a Marine assignment how many government contractors were under contract to assume the same duties of Marines and why would we allow the Libyan government to approve our hires?
The functional security budget for Benghazi alone was $ 11 million. Blue Mountain was a ‘no bullet’ contract and the hiring of the February 17th Brigade to provide outside security to the compound was mired in a labor dispute due to the number and time of working hours, working conditions, and pay scale. Many members of the February 17th Brigade were on strike at the time of the attacks and many fled prior.
The administration allowed a well armed, well trained, 16 member security forces to be removed from Libya in August, about a month before the attack. They were to eventually be replaced by a Libya security force who Ambassador Stevens wrote could not be trusted because it was forbidden to vet the personnel under Libyan government rules.
The House Oversight Committee had documentation that the WHSR started receiving emails that the mission was under hostile surveillance as early as 1 PM, on the day of the attack. The WH/DoD/Pentagon ordered the drone to the location to video the actions at the compound. No order or permission was provided to the CIA annex to render assistance to those under attack at the mission as the attack was imminent and later under assault.
Those at the annex, without DC knowledge or approval, later did provide lethal protections and countermeasures as no other military assistance was dispatched. As soon as the attacks began, the mission sounded an audible alarm for the whole compound, alerting Tripoli and the Diplomatic Security in Washington DC. The Diplomatic Security headquarters in DC which resides in the State Department also went to the Department of Defense while DSHQ maintained opened communications with the mission during the whole attack. At this time, the CIA annex was also alerted and told to prepare to aid personnel.
Where was the President? ‘Absent’ yet?
The administration refuses to fully describe the nature of the personnel in Tripoli that were dispatched to Benghazi on a chartered aircraft. They were however, not Marines, but likely a hired substitute group FAST team of government contractors. It has been stated under oath that there were no assets within any favorable distance or within time constraints to respond to the attack in Benghazi, why? As Libya was the highest threat and greatest hotspot for attack, no proactive measures were in place for more than two years and no one took any initiative to either offer, or better still, demand rescue and safety measures for Benghazi or other locations including Cairo, Tunis, or any number of other diplomatic posts.
Where was the ‘Fire Station’ set up for any and all contingencies that were more than likely to occur? There were no contingency plans or a ‘firehouse’ set up in one of the most fire prone areas where Americans were in harm’s way. Leadership?
Given the ‘on-hook’ destinations of communications coming from Benghazi pleading for assistance, there were an estimated 300 to 400 personnel in national security positions that were receiving the emails, the encrypted mobile texts, or simply desperate phone calls via secured systems. After the dismissal of the national security officials, all actions were handed off to the NSC and the military command center – ‘nothing else to see here folks back to business as usual.’
Remember, the President of the United States is NEVER, EVER more than a few minutes from secure communications… ‘Absent’? AWOL?
Dianne Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee said lawmakers viewed the video of the mission showing the post before the attack, the full set of incidents, and the exodus. These videos were a combination of surveillance cameras at the compound and the drone feed. The video(s) included the Ambassador’s body being dragged out of a building. This speaks to and proves that an ‘anti-Muslim’ YouTube video was clearly not the reason for the attack as fabricated by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice. David Petraeus did provide an immediate assessment that the attack was performed by a radical Islamists group known as Ansar al Sharia.
They knew immediately, and there never was any question despite what many surrogates have said, even during Thursday’s hearings.
It is an indisputable fact that much of the objective in Benghazi was to restore order from a pre and post Qaddafi regime. Much of the order included identifying lethal weapons smuggling, in and out of Libya, to destinations that include Turkey, Syria, Mali, Iraq, and Algeria to list a few countries. A buyback program was initiated by the CIA in the area for high grade military weapons that included manpads and stinger missiles.
The U.S. government under the Obama administration did in fact provide lethal weaponry to Libyan rebels for the eventual overthrow of Qaddafi and the same is true in Syria. So a high grade weapons pipeline was established, chased, smuggled, and transferred. This now begs additional questions that include who did the State Department and the Department of Defense hire for all parts of all missions in the Middle East? Could it be that the four dead Americans were actually killed with weapons provided by the United States that eventually went to the wrong hands?
Did the United States solicit historically recognized jihadists/Islamists of known and unknown quantity and quality via militias from the start to the finish in overthrowing Libya strongman Qaddafi and beyond? Should attention be placed on a domestic arms security company known as Turi Defense Group out of Las Vegas who was in communication with Benghazi? Marc Turi is/was an authorized GSA arms vendor that held several government contracts for providing arms that included destinations such as Qatar and other Gulf States, all at the core of providing lethal military grade weapons as directed by the Obama administration. Incidentally, Turi lives in Arizona and his home was raided by Federal law enforcement in 2012.
The State Department applied millions of dollars to Libya under the premise of grants and humanitarian aid and to what accounting have these monies been scrutinized to date and/or will be in the near future? Simple searches on open sources have shown that more than $30 million was assigned for various objectives in Libya in a post Qaddafi landscape. Have those funds or unspent funds been accounted for?
What is the status today of the FBI investigation into Benghazi? Hillary Clinton, in her testimony, said many things, one of which was that al Qaeda is a “brand.” This speaks to the matter that there are several associated militias in Libya and MENA that include Ansar al Sharia or any other factions and may also include members of the February 17th Brigade. At the time of the attack, there were only three members of the February 17th Brigade at the compound who were actually deputized by the Libyan government.
The most shocking point spoken by Hillary Clinton was “what difference at this point does it make?” She went on to say, “to be clear, it is from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice.” These two statements are key as they speak to timing, both of which point to pre-election conditions of Barack Obama and post-election conditions as the administration maintains power to ensure the facts on Benghazi remain opaque and oblique.
All deference was paid to Libyan placeholders as they demanded that any official rescue teams had to dress in civilian clothing to keep tensions at a minimum. 300 threats were provided from the intelligence community yet blame is placed back on the intelligence community saying that none of the intelligence was actionable per Panetta’s testimony. General Ham was in constant communications with the Ambassador in Libya for many months. He delivered specific reports to General Dempsey, of which Dempsey admitted he received, and was well aware of conditions, yet never offered or suggested an increase of security or military assets as a safety measure. He also did not set up any contingency plans such as the ‘Fire Station’ to handle any eventuality. This is completely against all military policy throughout the ranks and now sends a very sad message – ‘will they have my back no matter where I am assigned?’
Both Secretary Panetta and Martin Dempsey testified that after the one single meeting for thirty minutes at the White House, there were no further conversations with the President regarding Benghazi and that includes not only Barack Obama, but Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus. The matter for all involved was closed and an Executive Privilege was attached to 9-11-12 Presidential Daily Briefings (PDHs) associated to Libya for public or investigative purposes. The investigation as we are told is in the hands of the FBI and the Department of Justice to determine if there will ever be enough to build a case for future prosecution of the terrorists involved.
Panetta admitted in his testimony that the terrorists are emboldened, regardless of capture or response possibilities now, which in summary, is the most disturbing revelation of all. The threat to American safety and assets across the globe remain at high risk, yet there is no ordered readiness condition to save our brothers and sisters or sovereign locations worldwide.
Where was the President? Our sources tell us, that though he was ‘absent’, he indeed gave the ‘stand-down’ orders. Prior to that, it was his naïve approach, inept preparation and response to obvious needs that set the scene in place – the most obvious day for retaliatory action on the part of al Qaeda. What are we being asked to believe?
Research and contributing to this article are SUA Staff members Denise Simon and Monica Morrill; Edited by Scott W. Winchell.
Opinions vary widely on all subjects, especially existential issues like the never ending and complicated situation in the Middle East and Iran’s role in the community of nations. Critical thinkers find that utter frustration is the usual result because you may not know the authors, you may not know all facets of the issues and you cannot avoid being skeptical, so you ask yourself; who is more believable? How can one side of an argument be so diametrically opposed to the other that intrinsically you know one of them cannot be believed and the other, by process of elimination must be more correct. The problem is, how do you know?
First, you read the words of one side, parse them carefully, check their sources and citations, then do the same with the other. In the process, you also have to ask yourself, is anything missing from either argument? Did the author of either viewpoint intentionally leave out critical information, is any of it incorrect?
Secondly, you ask yourself, who are the authors? What association to their ability to publish do they align themselves? What background does each have? From where does their experience emanate and are there any hidden agendas or associations that would taint or add more credence to their words? Who is the more credible author?
In this brief treatise, and posted below, are two takes on the world, especially Iran, and certainly the greater issues of our troubled times. So, as you read excerpts of each, consider who each is, and then apply the appropriate weight to the argument each shares.
Interestingly enough, in the case I bring before you now, the opposing viewpoints come from two people with the same name. How ironic is that?
The two men I refer to are Paul Vallely, and Paul Vallely.
The second is retired Major General Paul E. Vallely, US Army. He retired in 1991 from the US Army as Deputy Commanding General, US Army, Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii. General Vallely graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and was commissioned in the Army in 1961 serving a distinguishing career of 32 years in the Army.
General Vallely is a graduate of the Infantry School, Ranger and Airborne Schools, Jumpmaster School, the Command and General Staff School, The Industrial College of the Armed Forces and the Army War College. His combat service in Vietnam included positions as infantry company commander, intelligence officer, operations officer, military advisor and aide-de-camp. He has over fifteen (15) years experience in Special Operations, Psychological and Civil-Military Operations.
He served in many overseas theaters to include Europe and the Pacific Rim Countries as well as two combat tours in Vietnam. He has served on US security assistance missions on civilian-military relations to Europe, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and Central America with in-country experience in Indonesia, Columbia, El Salvador, Panama, Honduras and Guatemala. He has served as a consultant to the Commanding General of the Special Operations Command as well as the DOD Anti-Drug and Counter -Terrorist Task Forces. He also designed and developed the Host-Nation Support Program in the Pacific for DOD and the State Department. He has in-country security assistance – experience in Israel, Iraq, Kuwait, El Salvador, Columbia and Indonesia in the development of civil-military relations interfacing with senior level military and civilian leadership.
General Vallely has been a military analyst on television and radio for over ten years. He is also a guest lecturer on National Security, international political, economic issues, strategic planning matters and the Global War against Radical Islam and other threats to Amercia. He and LTG Thomas McInerney authored the book, “Endgame” – Blueprint for Victory for Winning the War on Terror”, “Warfooting” and “Baghdad Ablaze”. He is a member and founder of the Iran Policy Committee. He is the Chairman of the Stand Up America. He was the senior military analyst for the Fox News Channel from 2000 -2007. General Vallely conducts an average of 4-6 national radio show interviews per week and is well known for his published articles on a multitude of subjects and issues.
He and his wife, Marian, are the co-trustees of the Scott Vallely Soldiers Memorial Fund and reside in Montana. He and Mrs. Vallely are deeply involved in state and local issues as well as supporting a multitude of community events and activities.
Now that you have a better understanding of each, and I suggest you “Google” their names and read other articles, and listen to their speeches and decide for yourself, who earns my confidence? Notice also that Paul Vallely number one did not do his homework on who number two is now.
Article Number 1 – By Paul Valley 1
Paul Vallely: War on Iran has begun. And it is madness
The parallels with Iraq are disturbing: we are convinced of a sinister threat to the West and we have a dodgy dossier to prove it
One of the more embarrassing features of the internet is that, from time to time, I find myself being confused with a namesake. Paul E Vallely is not me. He is a retired US major-general who is now the senior military analyst for Rupert Murdoch’s outrageously right-wing Fox News. Among other things, he wants to bomb Iran, which I decidedly do not.
There is something deeply disquieting about the deterioration in relationships between the West and Iran in recent days. William Hague was well within existing protocol to expel all Iran’s diplomats from Britain after a mob sacked the British embassy in Tehran. But what is proper is not always wise.
But Iran is a big, politically sophisticated country whose constitution of parliament, president, councils and assemblies of religious experts, creates a system of checks and balances in which change is possible. Reformers have held sway at times in this political pluralism. The Iranian establishment is fragmented into factions; a third of MPs did not vote for the measure to reduce the diplomatic status of Iran’s relations with Britain last Sunday. But it is precisely the wrong reactionary factions which are strengthened by the bellicosity of the West.
And make no mistake, the war has begun. Virulent computer viruses disabled Iran’s nuclear centrifuges last year. Two of the nation’s leading nuclear physicists have been assassinated, and a third was wounded by assassins on motorbikes. The UK’s decision to freeze $1.6bn of Iranian assets – which is what provoked the violence at the British embassy – was the fourth round of sanctions. Hawks like my military namesake talk openly of deploying unmanned drones against nuclear power stations and provoking an uprising against the government in Tehran. And now comes all the EU sound and fury about not bowing “to Iran’s intimidation and bullying”. The hollow laughter from Tehran reflects heightened nationalist resolution and increased hostility to the West.
The panel discussion below recently took place at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend in West Palm Beach, Florida (Nov. 17-20, 2011). The transcript follows. To view the question and answer session, click here. Also, see the video of MG Vallely’s speech. He is the second speaker behind Bruce Bawer starting at time stamp 11:50. of Video Part #1.
Paul Vallely: Thank you very much, Michael. Good morning, everybody. We came from Montana two days ago, it was nine degrees.
So even if it’s raining outside, it’s wonderful. And I’ve got my nurse’s assistant here, Muffin, who you’ll get to meet.
Michael Ledeen and I won’t cover with you all of our medical problems last year, but it really put us out of action for a while. But we’re standing, Michael, and we’re here with all of you. Wonderful friends, you know, we’ve known you for so long now. Years. And it’s always a pleasure, and appreciate when Michael and David invite us to be a part of this each and every year.
Stand Up America, just to tell you a little bit — we have 16 research intelligence analysts that work for us around the United States. And that’s what’s the basis of us being able to produce and publish a lot of articles that are pertinent to the subjects that we’ll be discussing this weekend.
But specifically, let me try to address the decline of the West and answer the questions, Michael, as best I can. But certainly, we really want to have a heavy question-and-answer period, where we can get more into the Middle East and more specificity of some of the major issues that we’re looking at today.
But you know, when you look historically back — and I learned as a cadet at West Point, when we studied all the great battles — all the revolutions that had taken place, the tactics and the strategies that were used to restore a society or a culture — we certainly have to look at what were the root causes of the decline. And if you typically look back at revolutions and the demise of empires, the fall of empires over the centuries, you will see it comes back basically — something has happened in that culture with those people, from tyrannical governments, dictatorial governments. And it comes down a lot to the economics, and what kind of pain that is placed on any kind of society.
So when we look at what’s happening around the world — and I’ll talk more specifically about it, and what I call a chessboard, the international global chessboard, to lay out exactly how we see things as the world exists today. But examining the past again, and reflecting — yes, we have been in a decline.
If you track back culturally in America, I can track it back to the ’60s. And then, when we look at the financial — the stability of our markets over a period of time. But mixed in with that was the innovation of America, and the high-technology developments. So as a decline occurred in certain parts of our structure, even the political decline of effective leadership over the years, effective government.
So you tie all of those things in together while you’re trying out there in the private sector, and those that do have common sense and are innovative, to be creating products, activities, corporations and organizations — really still today, that’s the glue that’s holding us together.
We did a strategic study — we completed it two months ago. I’ll be happy to provide you a copy of it. But guess what the four or five major threats to America are, when we look at this decline? Number one, the greatest threat to America is an inept and a dysfunctional government. Okay, think about that. The second major threat in the decline — as we’ve seen, and we’re experiencing right now — is the financial collapse of the United States and the Western countries. Third, the greatest threat was our southern borders and our borders. The fourth was Iran and what’s happening in the Middle East. And fifth was Afghanistan and Pakistan. So when you analyze that, and you talk about the decline politically, when you look at a dysfunctional government that we have so bureaucratized, and we’ve so over legislated, then our hands are almost tied.
So the question is, as we come back — what are the solutions? And I call it the restoration. As we’ve seen a decline now with still a strengthening of the glue within the American society, still with many of us having what I call the warrior spirit, the ability to restore the Constitution, the ability to restore the republic, and get back to the basic values and traditions — that’s how you get after the root cause.
But let me tell you a little bit of difference. As you restore, and as countries, as societies, restore themselves after tremendous upheaval and tremendous pain, it all comes back to superb leadership. But above that — I define it even further — is the warrior. And the difference between warriors and leaders — warriors will fall on their sword. I will die for you, I will die for your children, to restore this country and to make it what it should be today to deal with today and tomorrow.
So we all need to have that warrior spirit. Because, as Herman Cain pointed out, we are in the battle for America. It’s not business as usual. This is a different situation in 2011, going into 2012. And your neighbors, your local communities, have to realize they’ve got to get out of their bubble.
I talked to 60 corporate leaders yesterday. Honest to goodness, I couldn’t believe it. It’s like they’re all in their corporate bubble, except for a few. And I find that amongst many intelligent, educated individuals. So in this restoration, to go from the decline that we’ve seen across the board to restoration now, and coming back up — and Michael Ledeen and I talked earlier this morning — we want to be on a positive note.
Yes, we have to look at the threats out there. We have to understand that we’ve got to have a government, we’ve got to have an organization within this country, that can meet those threats. Because listen, you can talk about unemployment, you can talk about economics, you can talk about all those other issues out there. They mean nothing, unless we can secure you and your families. The security of you and your families is the utmost important thing we can do. Because once we have the security of America, we have strong leadership and we have strong warriors leading our country, we can do anything. And that’s the key to it all.
So within my 10 minutes, that’s it. And very happy to address the Middle East and some other things.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”
We started the National Call to Action series early in 2011 to alert America of the dangers facing the Nation and that immediate action needed to be taken by our elected leadership. This has failed to occur and now we know now that we are in a Battle to save the country before much more aggravated pain is afflicted on the society. The arrogance of power and incompetence in Washington has generated widespread dissent across America. From our research and analysis at Stand Up America, we have found that the following are the greatest threats to America and must be dealt with immediately to save the Nation and the Republic.
Dysfunctional, corrupt and inept government
Inability to develop and execute a viable US “forward strategy”
US Borders, particularly, the Southern Border
Rogue nations like Iran and North Korea
Islamists/Enablers of Radical Islam
The Progressive Socialist Media
Russia and China as enablers against America
Globalism and multi-culturists, New World Order zealots
United Nations and their subversives
All these take on different degrees of severity and threat to America’s well-being.
Each member of the House of Representatives, the United States Senate and even the President of the United States placed their hands on the Bible, raised their hands to swear on their sacred honor to protect, defend and serve the people of the United States. Sadly, we see them in violation of their oaths and their responsibilities. We should see a massive resignation demand on the steps of the capital and the call for the Impeachment and arrest of Barack Obama and others. We should be seeing them groveling before those who instilled their faith and trust in them by electing them to public service. Most have violated the Constitution of the United and many are guilty of treason. Fraud and corruption are rampant in the use of the peoples’ money.
We the people have had enough of this inept Government, elected officials and appointees. Our political system is broke…all branches appear dysfunctional and unable to solve any problems. Where are leaders with Wisdom, Courage and Common Sense? Have we no “Warriors” anymore. Where are the national security and “policy wonks” as well as our Generals and Admirals to reset the military strategy to deal with today and tomorrow’s threats.
We are on a progressive socialist suicide march. WE, the people have watched the President and his Cabinet, Congress and other bureaucrats defile our founding documents and sacred principles for several years now with no end in sight.
In 1789, Thomas Jefferson was overheard saying to Madison:
“Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves therefore are its only safe depositories.”
In Lincoln’s 1861 Inaugural address, he issued this warning to his peers:
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one. This is a most valuable and sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world”.
A change in government leadership must be conducted by the People of those elected and appointed political leaders who have violated the Constitution, which states in Article One, Section Five, Clause II “Each House may determine the Rules of its’ Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of a 2/3 vote, expel a member”
The Constitution and the States, however, provide the people the right and authority to do either of the following:
Per the 10th amendment to decide domestic matters within individual states, also grants the right to the state to refuse federal aid and to sever from the Federal Government’s authority entirely or per Article Two, Section Four, “The President, Vice President and ALL CIVIL OFFICERS of the United States shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
The current oath of office was enacted in 1884: The Oaths of Office is administered to:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
When a young man or woman enlists in one of the armed forces, he or she takes an oath to protect and defend the United States of America.
When an officer in any of the armed services raises his hand and takes an oath to protect and defend his or her country, the Officers are expected to keep the vow.
When any officer of the court takes an oath to perform their duties it is done with an expectation they will do so.
Why not the same for any member of the United States Government, but especially those that are elected by the people? Each member of the House of Representatives, the United States Senate and even the President of the United States raise their hands and swear on their sacred honor to protect, defend and serve the people of the United States.
BERATING and CONDEMING the United States before the world, overseas and in the United Nation is a flagrant violation of Trust and Honor.
The American people must do their duty to God and Country and use the power of their votes and remove the violators from office. WE need to establish a “Vote Of Confidence” measure. In the event there may be some doubt in certain individuals then for the good and welfare of the country ALL must go. We will start over if we have to! We will seek out those who have a strong desire to see America continue as created and designed by our Founding Fathers.
The majority of American people have lost trust and faith in those they have elected to serve the country because they have abrogated their oaths, given comfort to the enemy both foreign and domestic. The American confidence level of Congress has fallen to 12%. 545 men and women (that includes the President and Vice President as well as Members of the Supreme Court) have sworn to serve the nation. They have willingly taken an oath to protect and serve and defend the people and interests of this great country. Sadly, we see them in violation of their oaths and the moral strength to do what needs to be done.
America, Act Now for our survival as our strong and trusted nation is in great jeopardy. This is our National Call to Battle. This is a battle to save America.
Paul E. Vallely – Major general, US Army (Retired), Chairman of Stand Up America
“Ride through the valley in thunder and rain. The battle is raging, redeem this domain. The castle of Eden lies silent above. Darkness surrounded us, away we must go. I look through the eyes of the world. I see there are strangers among us. Awaiting a sign from above. To conquer the power and the glory. Enter the battle, our will to enchain. Bringing us forward, defeating the pain. Into the meeting with swords made of steel. We’re standing together the secret reveals. Come across to the Promised Land. Close your eyes, I will take your hand. Through the river of steel we’ll go. When the dragon lies bleeding.”
The enemies and certain identifiable demagogues of the United States have taken to view our country as a Dragon that must be bled of its power and stature. As the mythology of the dragon goes, you could not slay the dragon with one spear but that it would take many spears into the body of the dragon to slay it and “bleed it to death”. As you look at the world today, our enemies, both foreign and domestic, are sending those spears into the body of the United States. I do not have the opportunity in this writing to discuss the various spears/threats in detail other than to list some of them here:
Dysfunctional government and Cultural decline
Weak, misguided leadership in Congress, the White House, and in our Courts
US Borders, particularly, the Southern Border
Islamists/Enablers of Islamists
The Progressive Socialist Media
Russia and China as enablers against America
Globalism and multi-culturists, New World Order zealots
United Nations and their subversives
Rogue nations like Iran and North Korea
These are the “spears” that must be dealt with by new leadership through common sense, wisdom, knowledge and initiating a revised forward US National Strategy to survive and restore the Republic. The US has always drawn operational plans from strategic doctrine. Currently, the NATION faces unprecedented threats and vulnerabilities. Should we continue America’s near-total reliance upon the logic of deterrence and appeasement, we will be doomed to be bled to death. Continued belief in classical threat-system dynamics could be problematic, even if American planners were to focus on just state sponsors and radical Iranian jihad proxies (like Hezbollah and Hamas). These states, like their surrogates, value particular religious or ideological preferences more highly than their own lives and freedoms.
At the start of the nuclear age, there was the threat of “massive retaliation” and mutual assured destruction (MAD). This gave way to “flexible response” and “nuclear utilization theory” (NUT). Interpenetrating these strategic doctrines, first conceived with reference to the USSR, were fierce debates over enemy targeting options. President Obama and team appear to be clueless to today’s threats and definable threat options. These very sensitive examinations will be divisive, but the pertinent issues concern America’s physical survival.
It is not a simple world, strategic doctrine is always a complex matter, and any improved US plans will have to be creative as well as comprehensive. If, for any reason, Iran is permitted to be the hegemonic (masters of the Middle East Chessboard) and nuclear power of the Middle East, our doctrine will have to identify viable global options. In turn, these options will require enemy perceptions of persuasive American power and of an American willingness to actually use this power.
An example of one major threat and spear: Moscow markets cruise missiles launched from a freight container – Russia’s Club-K Freight Container cruise missile. This relatively cheap, extra-smart, easy-to-use Club-K Container Missile System, which Moscow has put on the open market (Iran is the first acquirer), allows cruise missiles or Shehabs to be concealed in freight containers which can then be launched from a sea platform container ship. I have warned of this “spear” threat for over a year now; with no response from the powers-to-be. It is virtually undetectable by radar until activated. No wonder, Iran and Venezuela were keenly interested when the Club-K was put on the market at the Defense Services Asia exhibition in Malaysia for $15 million.
Western military experts are calling it a “real maritime fear for anyone with a waterfront.” The container-cum-missiles, carried by a ship, fishing vessel or truck can approach a targeted coast, highway, or international railway and strike behind the target’s missile defenses without alerting radar monitors or even surveillance drones and satellites. The capability is able to wipe out an aircraft carrier up to 400 kilometers away. The system’s manufacturer, Novator, is directing its marketing tactics at anyone under threat of military action from the United States. One expert accused the Russians of proliferating ballistic missiles on an unheard-of scale.
At the Malaysian exhibition, the marketing film showed the Club-K being activated from an ordinary truck. The truck pulls up, whereupon the container roof lifts up to reveal cruise missiles ready to fire. The operator then pushes a button and the missiles, which have a range of 350 km, are launched without further preparation.
Military sources warn that the sale of Club-K cruise missile systems to Iran and their transfer to Hezbollah would give them an edge substantial enough to be a game-changer into the Middle East balance of power and strength. They are capable of surreptitiously approaching any coastline in any region and send missiles flying against American, Western, or Israeli strategic targets before they know they are even under attack.
The missile specialist, Novator, which maintains a manufacturing plant in Yekaterinburg in the Ural Mountains, produces an array of missiles against air, sea, and land targets, including cruise missiles launched from submarines, as well as the advanced S-300 missile interceptor, which Russia contracted to sell Iran.
How should we deter a nuclear Iran, both from launching direct missile attacks, and from dispersing nuclear assets among terrorist proxies? And for Deterrence against Nuclear Terrorism (DANT), how should one power compensate for the absence of “fingerprints,” and for the limits of satellites and radars? This is significant because Ahmadinejad says that soon there will be a world without the United States and Israel. Coupled with his regular pronouncements to wipe Israel off the face of the earth; this sends nuclear alarm signals that cannot be ignored.
Threats to American cities could come from cars, trucks, and ships. Ballistic missile defense would be of no use against such ground-based attacks. Could we truly convince Tehran and its surrogates that any proxy act of nuclear terrorism would elicit a massive nuclear retaliation against Iran itself? The planned use of EMPs against specific US target cities like New York with a low level nuclear detonation will serve to freeze our grid systems and cause urban chaos. Meaningful action and policies must emerge from a carefully re-conceptualized US strategic doctrine and “Warrior” leadership.
Enemy state proxies were once limited in the damage that they could inflict and the logic of economic, cultural, and military warfare was traditionally based on reasonable expectations of victory. Today, some Nations, their proxies and the terror and radical Jihadi groups/cells could bring greater disasters to the American homeland. These are the “spears” that will bring us greater pain than was deliverable by our national enemies in World War II.
The Chessboard is set and the pieces are being moved deftly! It is time to change leadership in the USA to restore America and our Constitution!
Paul E. Vallely is a retired Major General in the US Army, and is the founder and CEO of Stand Up America.
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.