One the things that undoubtedly pushed Mosry’s government over the edge was the purge of top Egyptian military officers. In August of last year, it was reported that he had forced the resignation of Defense Minister, the Army Chief of Staff and “other senior generals.” It’s impossible to rule a country when your own country’s military refuses to obey your orders. The tension between the Ikhwan and the Egyptian military being what it is, Morsy let them go.
Why was it that the Egyptian military was so opposed to Morsy? As a Muslim Brother, he was committed to ruling Egypt under Sharia (i.e. Islamic) law. Sharia is a comprehensive system of legal, social, and economic doctrines that is incompatible with any system of secular rule. The Egyptian military, as brutally as they ruled that ancient land, did so without Sharia. It was Morsy who infamously proclaimed, “The Koran is our Constitution! The Prophet is our Leader! Jihad is our Path! And death in the name of Allah is our Goal!” Having said that, and accomplishing in deed his promises, the military turned on him.
Many people overlook the spate of top American military brass that President Obama has, well, trashed. Following the same path as Morsy, Obama apparently has no need for some military leaders. Here’s a quick list, courtesy of fellowshipofminds.com:
- General David Petraeus: Was Director of CIA. Suspicious exposure of extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell led to resignation on November 9, 2012. In came the obvious security risk, John Brennan. That is, if you can believe another former Director of the CIA, R. James Woolsey. Read the report on Brennan, “[I]t is hard to overstate the danger associated with the President of the United States having as his top advisor in these sensitive portfolios someone so severely compromised with respect to shariah and the threat it poses.”
- General John R. Allen: Succeeded Petraeus as Commander in Afghanistan. SecDef Leon Panetta suspended confirmation hearing to become the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO on November 13, 2012, as part of the Petraeus fallout, when it was revealed he was flirting with a Lebanese (reportedly Maronite) woman by the name of Jill Kelley. It is speculated that the firing had little to do with the salacious emails, but perhaps was a White House power play.
- Army General Carter Ham: Following the attack on Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, Obama canned AFRICOM Commander General Ham and installed General David Rodriguez. Apparently, General Ham was ready and willing to act during the Benghazi attack, and was relieved by his “second in command” when he refused to stand down. A month or so later, he was fired.
- Rear Admiral Gaouette: Accused of “inappropriate leadership judgment” following the Benghazi attacks, the Admiral was sent home port in Bremerton, Washington on October 27, 2012.
All within two months of Benghazi attacks.
But that’s not all. There is larger list of brass who have been, umm, disappeared by the Commander-in-Chief:
- General Stanley A. McChrystal: Following the publication of an interview with (now dead) Rolling Stone journalist Michael Hastings, in which the General apparently disrespected his civilian bosses, the top man in Afghanistan was dismissed by the administration.
- Marine Corps General James “Mad Dog” Mattis wasn’t even given the courtesy of notification that he’d been replaced. The Pentagon announced it, and he was told later by an aide.
- General William Ward
- General David McKiernan
- General James E. Cartwright
- Army Major General Ralph Baker: Fired in April, following sex and alcohol charges. He was fined a portion of his pay by his superior, the also fired General Ham, of AFRICOM.
That’s 10 Generals. Ten, including a Director of the CIA, Commander of AFRICOM, the Commander of US and ISAF Forces in Afghanistan, and the candidate for Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. Not small beans. A friend in the military informs me of many other Colonels and Navy Captains who have also been relieved or forcibly retired, but stopped short of providing names.
This does recall Morsy’s actions in a very uncomfortable light. I’m just not sure who copied whom. For Muslim Brother Mosry, it led to the downfall of his Presidency and arrest by the military. It’s hard to conceive of such a scenario in what has been the most politically stable nation in the world. Yet there is a growing awareness among the public, and especially the military, the President Obama is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda – first in Egypt, then in Libya, and now in Syria.
Just yesterday, Syria hacked Marines.com, and urged U.S. Marines to join them in their fight against al Qaeda in Syria. The article linked contains pictures, allegedly, of U.S. Marines protesting any action in Syria. The message read, in part, “Marines, please take a look at what your comrades think about Obama’s alliance with al-Qaida against Syria. Your officer in charge probably has no qualms about sending you to die against soldiers just like you, fighting a vile common enemy. The Syrian army should be your ally not your enemy.”
Sure, this could be Syrian propaganda. But it’s worth recording, particularly in the context of military casualties under Obama. Since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, there have been 2,161 deaths in Afghanistan. According to CNSNews.com, as of January 11, 2013, there were 2,053 deaths, 72% which occurred during Obama’s first term. Since then, there have been an additional 108 deaths. That math means that under eight years of Bush’s command, there were 575 deaths in the Afghanistan war, while under Obama – in less than five years – there have been 1,586 deaths. By any measure, a staggering increase of fatalities. Many view this tragic trend as an inevitable result of the Obama rules of engagement.
John McCain and Lindsey Graham are two of the leading voices of Republican support for Obama’s intended Syrian invasion. Yet can you recall any military action these two ever opposed? They’ve even gone to the right of Obama’s (already) unpopular planned strike: they want to force regime change, effectively empowering al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Why go half-hearted into a terrible idea?
The media, for their part, seem divided. Many sheepish reporters have been guilt tripped into supporting a strike, given Obama’s and Kerry’s emotional indictments against Assad. CNN, for example, urges the President to act for “what’s right.” The Washington Post, on the other hand, featured two op-eds: one, telling Congress to steer clear of any intervention, and another merely recommending that Republicans limit the scope of the engagement (the juvenile argument being that “isolationism” is bad, or something). (See here, and here.) (Jennifer Rubin, you’ve always been condescending toward conservatives, but now we’re all “isolationists” for not wanting to unnecessarily kick-off WWIII?)
As an update, Israel has sent home the reservists it called up. Seems like Israel has left the U.S. sphere of influence, and made peace with not only Iran, but Syria and Russia. The threat of the Ikhwan is that great to the Middle East at this time. This is in line with Netanyahu’s doublespeak, when he at once publicly aired photos and videos of gas masks being handed out to Israeli citizens, and at the same time told the people that there was a “low probability” of any fallout.
Assad, for his part, has stepped up the rhetoric and warned the United States that any action would likely result in a regional war. This echoes the thinly veiled warnings of Russia and Iran. But who would the war be between? Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Israel (?), Jordan – at least – vs. the United States, France, and the Muslim Brotherhood. That’s one likely break.
But it’s potentially simpler. You have the Islamists backed by Pakistan’s ISI and bankrolled by Qatar, with the United States armed forces acting as their spearhead (?!), against the forces of Orthodox Christianity and secularism. Further simplified, Dawood Ibrahim (and the USA) vs. Aleksandr Dugin and his regional partners.
Now that Obama has purged the brass, what will the remaining brass do? Do they really want to fight this war on behalf of al Qaeda, their sworn enemies? I can’t imagine so. There was hope that maybe the Republican House will bail them out, but don’t look for support from Senators McCain or Graham. Today, Boehner announced his support. So where’s that leave us? If Congress authorizes, then what?
Under the First Amendment, we are allowed to wonder out loud.
Does America’s military might get employed publicly on the side of al Qaeda, for the first time in history? Or, does Cairo repeat itself in Washington D.C.?
Editor’s Note: We have been informed that in addition to top brass, Senior NCOs are also being purged from the ranks. In the words of a veteran, NCOs are the heart and soul of the American military. Also, rank and file soldiers are being discharged (less than honorably) for any criticism of Obama’s political policies, including gays and women in the military. To paraphrase another veteran, Obama is flirting with disaster in Syria, threatening war while there is no clear threat to the United States; and furthermore, at a time when the military has been “hollowed out.” The consequences of such an action very well may disastrous. To quote, “We need a measure of sanity before we loose the dogs of war.”