Topic: War On Terror
HEY! CONGRESS! Al-Qaeda does NOT have an Air Force!

---

The US House Committee on Foreign Affairs chaired a meeting published as "Defeating al-Qaeda's Air Force: Pakistan's F-16 Program in the Fight Against Terrorism." The Champion of the Constitution reports on what this meeting covered, what it really demonstrated, and how it connects with the dream of Ron Paul, Dwight Eisenhower, myself and who knows? perhaps even you.

---

by Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
(libertarian)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008

As you can see for yourself at this house.gov page, Congress did indeed call this meeting entitled "Defeating Al-Qaeda's Air Force: Pakistan's F-16 Program in the Fight Against Terrorism." While I suppose if someone taught the neocon clerk or sub-committee chairman Gary Ackerman (D-NY) proper punctuation the title could be arranged to reflect the meeting contents much better, the first thing I want to note is the international consternation this title caused and the general geopolitical situation. Then I will summarize the meeting from my point of view  - I did listen to the entire two-hour proceeding, which you can watch here, and give you my unbiased (grin grin) conclusion.

The Pakistan Situation

The Times of India, the Press Trust of India and Pakistan's PakTribune were all highly interested and yet confused by the title of the meeting. While the meeting is of fairly high relevance to both Pakistan and India, most of the American public is either ignorant or don't-give-a-damn (yours truly and the Reader excepted :). And I can see why, there are so many nations the US government does international arms contracts - Israel and most of the Middle East, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Pakistan, parts of Europe, ex-Soviet republics (like Georgia) and pretty much anywhere else people want to buy weapons to deter or kill others it is hard to keep track. Hey, everyone DOES know the United States of America is the world's top international arms dealer by a longshot right?

The general geopolitical situation with Pakistan is that we are committing acts of war against this sovereign nation in what amounts to a just another undeclared war of terror. As I documented in "The Next American War of Terror in Pakistan Continues - Marriot Hotel Bombing Portends Blowback Event on American Soil", the New York Times and Financial Times reported that Bush issued secret orders to start attacking Pakistan without governmental permission. However, in the same article is the vehement public stance of the Pakistani military's army chief, Pervez Kiyani, which is to not allow foreign troops onto its soil and defend Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity "at all cost." The Pakistanis have no choice if you understand this nation's political situation which I tried to explain in my July article "Utter Chaos in Afghanistan and Pakistan as Barack Obama Sanctions Preemptive War"

Everyone, Pakistan is a nuclear-weapon-enabled (WMD, if you will) military power and its government is in complete chaos. Both Pakistan and India are armed to the teeth, constantly aggress against each other, and have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Our attacks are destabilizing Pakistan and both their Afghanistan and Indian border situations.

We are now in a situation of supreme irony - not only did we give  military aid and sell to Pakistan the bullets and missiles that are now being deployed against our poor American soldiers, but Congress is debating NOT IF but HOW MUCH the American taxpayer will pay to Pakistan and ultimately Lockheed Martin with further arms sales.

What about poor India you ask? They are all set to start a war with Pakistan, thanks to the USA.  Your America already sold them higher grade Lockheed Martin F-16 and F-18 fighters in 2006 per this CNN article.  Your America already sold them Raytheon weapons systems in 2002 per this BBC article.

A note on the big picture before moving on to the meeting: Pakistan-India is just one of the last unresolved battlegrounds from the post-WWI and -WWII eras. Some of the lines of battle resolved fairly recently are East/West Germany (Happy Unification Day October 3!), the break-up of Yugoslavia (which Clinton bombed for good measure). However, there are other lines in the sand where the armies of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers stopped and are still not resolved by modern armies - Israel/Palestine, inside the failed state of Iraq (give it another year or so, you'll see), and South Korea and the besieged state of North Korea.

[You can read about more about this I recommend the book Blowback by Chalmers Johnson from the year 2000, where he predicted 9/11 and was publicly laughed at by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and many others. It is valuable to study Chalmers and others who were later proven correct, just like Vern McKinley and Ron Paul were proven out on collapse of Fannie-Freddie and the entire American financial system, in order to prevent future errors. Sorry to be so serious, if you need an entertaining 2-minute summary of India-Pakistan in simple language, everything you need to know is in this videoclip from The Onion.]

"Defeating al-Qaeda's Air Force: Pakistan's F-16 Program in the Fight Against Terrorism" Meeting Summary

The meeting was all about the funding for a "Mid Life Upgrade" to the F-16's we sold Pakistan (not al-Qaeda). The F-16 MLU is intended to "very significantly increase the capability of the Pakistani Air Force to conduct close air support and night precision attack missions" by enhancing the aircraft with newer missile capability, night vision imaging, GPS and a new radar system, and a bunch of other really cool-sounding options that I bet all the Congressmen present did not understand either (see Navy Vice Admiral Wieringa's statement, page 4).

Representative Ackerman stated the reason for the meeting was that the State Department had reprogrammed the defense spending for the $890 million dollar project so that the American taxpayer would pay $445 million instead of the Pakistan government. It appears that initially the sub-committee had received assurances that the American taxpayer would only pay $109 million in order to upgrade Pakistan with military aircraft. (Ackerson statement, page 1). It is important to note that the entire F-16 program package, which includes the cost of the planes as well as the MLU update, is $5.1 billion.

The majority of the session more or less consisted of questions lobbed to our Generals and international arms dealer (sorry, I meant the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Camp) about the insinuations and what Ackerman termed "contempt" and "cavalier disregard" that the Bush administration has treated Congress with by giving Pakistani government assurances that we would help pay for this upgrade, how the Pakistani government would feel if they did not have the continued military aid, how seriously the Pakistanis needed the aircraft upgrade, and whether or not if they did have them, if they would indeed use them to fight al-Qaeda.

Although in my mind Ackerman completely missed the boat on whether to  even supply them at all, to his credit he did also spend some of his time expressing doubt that these aircraft would be used against al-Qaeda (on page 2):

"I... remain... unconvinced that Pakistan needs F-16s to assist us in the fight against terror. The question isn't whether F-16s could be used against al-Qaeda, they obviously can be. But there are problems with this justification. First, while F-16s can be used in close air support of counter-terror operations, and we, in fact, use them that way ourselves, the F-16s that Pakistan currently flies are not configured to carry precision guided munitions so it would be a few years before the planes could be used effectively in this manner. And while Pakistan may be using its current F-16s to bomb al Qaeda targets it is not doing anything like close air support. It is also my understanding that only recently has the Pakistani Air Force agreed to receive training in such tactics. So, the question isn't whether the planes can be used this way, the question is: are they the best weapon to use or are there others that would serve our interests better and could be deployed sooner? This question is especially relevant when we are now talking about our own money...

"Questions about Pakistan's capacity and their will to fight the terrorists in their midst have been raised consistently since 2001. Capacity to fight can be addressed with our assistance, but their will to fight cannot. Too many Pakistanis see this fight as an "American war." To be prosecuted successfully, it must be viewed by Pakistanis as a war for Pakistan's survival; it has to be perceived by them as their fight [Ackerman's italics]. I'm willing to give the new civilian government in Pakistan the benefit of the doubt regarding their commitment to defeating extremism. Clearly, President Zardari and his family have suffered the tragic loss of a wife and mother at the hands of extremists. But he has an enormous task ahead of him. Not only does he have to convince his own public that the fight is worth waging but he has to coerce the military and intelligence agencies to abandon policies that support militants, policies those agencies have been pursuing for decades. Press reports over the weekend highlight the depth of the problem. On the one hand there were reports of continued aggressive pursuit of militants in Bajur agency by Pakistan's military. On the other hand, there were reports of Pakistani troops firing on American troops who were on the Afghan side of the border across from South Waziristan.

"This is a perilous time for Pakistan and crucial one for American policy there. It's imperative that we get it right. We could start by ensuring that we are providing Pakistan with the equipment and training needed to effectively fight terror rather than spending our money and theirs on weapons systems simply to make Pakistani generals feel good about themselves."

Congressman Edward Royce (R-CA) stated he had read quite a few stories about unmanned Predator drones attacking alleged militant positions in Pakistan's tribal areas but not a single story of Pakistan using its F-16 fighters against Al-Qaeda. He also stated that he thought F-16's Pakistan were just being used as deterrents towards India, who are also supplied with American F-16's and F-18's.  Royce and I apparently read the same newspapers. However, the meeting more or less ended without a clear resolution as it was apparently just a fact-finding meeting. It was interesting to watch the proceedings, since although all parties spoke and articulated ideas in the English language, my general feeling is I could give these clowns some lessons on how to prepare for and run effective meetings.

Trying to be unbiased, it is fair to mention the reply from the generals and the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs. To address Ackerman's point, there really was only one piece of coherent feedback, which was:

"According to information furnished to us by the Pakistan Embassy in Washington, the PAF flew 93 sorties in August 2008 in operations against the Taliban. However, their current model F-16 can be used for close air support missions only in daylight and good visibility. They cannot be employed at night, a fact not lost on the Taliban and other extremist groups being targeted."

Note Mr. Camp's statement states only Taliban, not al-Qaeda. I interpret this to mean Taliban and Pakistani tribals, although Camp does make a reference to "other extremist groups." And remember, if we start the F-16 upgrades tomorrow, only by mid-2010 can they even be used against al-Qaeda.

So, yes, Congressman Ackerman, Congressman Royce, it is important we get this right. While you and the rest of your committee spend your time debating whether Paki air force pilots can have color GUI monitors with interactive special lighting inside their cockpits (no exaggeration), your little sub-committee is deciding on one critical but small facet of a foreign policy that is at its heart a massive inept bureaucracy. [And where was our fearless grandfather Ron Paul during all this? I believe he is on this Committee on Foreign Affairs, but not this sub-committee. Besides, rumor has it he was running around trying to defend the dollar, silly guy!]

Ackerson had one statement that highlighted this ineptness:

"I believe that the Congress should vote affirmatively to approve arms sales to particular countries if these proposed sales are above a certain dollar value.  We could establish an expedited process to ensure that once a sale is notified, Congress would act one way or another, but as it stands now, most members [of Congress] who do not sit on this committee have no idea what we sell to whom. Just as often such questions go wholly unexamined. And even if members did object, the current process leaves them with virtually no opportunity to affect the sale one way or another. The fact that Congress has not seriously challenged an arms sale since 1987 isn't evidence that the process works, but evidence that the Congress has ceded too much authority to the executive. Congress has been historically accommodating because the executive branch had almost always acted in good faith. This Administration is no longer entitled to that presumption."

Shocking, eh? Congress doesn't have to approve each international arms sale? The rest of Congress doesn't know what we sell to whom? Isn't this unconstitutional?

Yes, it is. Ackerman is correct in that the Executive branch has usurped the powers of Congress, but he fails to condemn it as unconstitutional. Unfortunately the Founding Fathers did not expressly ban that Congress would be unable to provide arms to foreign nations, with the obvious exception to our allies in times of war, but they did write in Amendment 10 which reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the people." The purpose of this amendment was to clearly constrict the role of government to what was within the government, so no, the government is NOT allowed to start up and profit from its international arms business.  Not to mention that if a member of Congress is voting on a bill that (s)he has not read or understands is ALSO violating Article VI Clause 3 that every member of Congress "mustbe bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution."  The word on the street is they will still make McBama swear this too!

Besides the upgrade system, Weiringa also testified on page 3 to some of the munitions to be sold to Pakistan (or bought by the taxpayer and sent to Pakistan, however you want to look at it), which I will list here so you have a general idea before I continue:

• 500 AMRAAM missiles (Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles, remember Pakistan will use these to devastating effect against Al-Qaeda's Air Force)
• 750 Mark-84 2000lb. General Purpose Bombs
• 750 BLU-109 2000lb Penetrator Bombs
• 500 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) tail kits
• 1600 Enhanced Guided Bomb Unit kits
• and assorted bomb fuzes and support equipment

My Conclusion

My personal stance is that governmental support of ALL foreign armed forces and in times of peace and including this undeclared Global War of Terror and ALL foreign humanitarian aid should be stopped immediately. That's right, my stance is basically to stop all foreign aid. Why? First, the support of the standing war between India and Pakistan is just one of the egregious morally wrong examples of America supporting a world of continuous war for our military-industrial complex.  We commit the same hypocrisy by supporting both Israel and its enemies, and we did the same by fueling the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s from both sides among many others. Or we pick a side to advance our imperialistic agenda, whether its the Cold War or War of Terror - whether you believe all that crap about spreading democracy is your decision - but the fact is that historically we seem to prefer supporting oppressive military dictatorships like Syngman Rhee's South Korea, Suharto's Indonesia, Musharraf's Pakistan, or take your pick in Latin or South America. There is nothing in the Constitution that permits this type of militant behavior, and although at the risk of sounding like a broken record, any act of War must be declared by Congress per the Constitution's Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, and Congress has not declared war since Pearl Harbor.

Why include international humanitarian aid too? Well before you call me inhuman, there is nothing to prevent private citizens from donating their hard-earned dollars abroad or domestically. I think depending on our government to donate taxpayer money abroad is morally wrong, even in cases where there is a disaster, even like the Burma typhoon, Asian tsunami, Sichuan earthquake, Darfur, or, for that matter Hurricane Ike or Katrina. How much should be donated? Do all taxpayers agree to do so? I think if a citizen is really concerned and knows the government is not going to help, they will donate more themselves, rather relying on their government to be their moral conscience.

Besides, all too often we give humanitarian aid to some regime, again usually a dictatorship (cough Georgia), and even if they buy food or medicine, they are merely then rearranging their budgets to buy more weapons. Take for instance this clip from Dr. Ron Paul on a quite recent bill to give Georgia (the nation, not the state) $1 billion in humanitarian aid. Paul humiliated the inept bureaucrat asking for the money with the question "Do you even think about Americans?" and asked why the money couldn't be better spent on the domestic welfare of Americans. Paul even recently voted AGAINST Hurricane Ike aid to his OWN struck district - and believe it or not, they do not want to lynch him because its clear to them that its their responsibility and the government really should not even have this money in the first place. [I'll write up a quick article tomorrow if no one else here at the Chart has by then.]

Nothing in the Constitution sanctions this type of corrupt behavior. Mao Tse-tung of China was infamous for supporting other Asian and especially African dictatorships even while millions upon millions of his own people suffered and died in a great famine. Are we Americans headed for the same fate? Or have we already reached that day? In terms of all foreign aid, Congress simply does not understand, THE MONEY OF WE THE PEOPLE IS NOT THEIRS TO GIVE.

Anyways, I also hold the view that United States should no longer be the world's policeman and unchallenged superpower, and we should end our military empire of over 700 bases in over 130 countries and change to a foreign policy of nonintervention, like Jefferson's mantra "commerce with all nations, alliance with none." However, I do realize that both this imperialistic foreign policy most likely will not end until after America is bankrupted. Maybe now with this financial crisis smacking up on our windshields some of you will also believe this day is getting close. - I also write about what to do to protect your families as well, try my Money Matrix series.

I will end with the "Cross of Iron" speech from President Eisenhower at the start of his term in 1953.  Its a little lengthy, but its amazing how relevant it is if you replace  communism with the War of Terror, so I will not edit a single word the excerpt. (Photo source)

"This has been the way of life forged by 8 years of fear and force.

"What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road?

"The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated. The worst is atomic war.

"The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

"This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

"The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

"This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

"This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that come with this spring of 1953.

"This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and lasting peace. It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak their intentions with simplicity and with honesty. It calls upon them to answer the question that stirs the hearts of all sane men: is there no other way the world may live?

Eisenhower had defeated the staunch noninterventionalist Taft in the 1953 Republican primary, and the above is certainly the optimistic speech of an ex-general committed to a chance for peace in his day. However, Eisenhower failed to deliver. Similar to the Bush Doctrine against terror (the same Doctrine that Sarah Palin seems unfamiliar with), four years later Eisenhower proclaimed the interventionalist Eisenhower Doctrine that committed America’s armies to defend the Middle East against communism, and he sent the first troops to Lebanon. We now send armies to die and occupy foreign lands for oil with the death-wish to die not against international communism, but allegedly against international terrorism.

By today's standards, I state clearly and will defend my claim that our Founding Fathers were themselves terrorists against the British Empire. The American Empire has now embarked against in a fight against, yes, Al-Qaeda, but also the nation of Iraq, the nation of Iran, the nation of Pakistan, the Taliban, a plethora of tribals, and a plethora of young men and women whose innocent family members have been maimed, slaughtered, or ruined economically by the American military machine's use of force, famine, and torture.

If you read the rest of my writings you will find I have nothing but utmost respect for the service of all Americans soldiers, and I am pained by each individual death, but you see in the name of Liberty and Freedom as I define it I have no choice but to defect from the nationalism, imperialism, and socialism of many other Americans who support John McCain, who support Barack Obama, who support the Bush regime.

You see, my fellow Americans, I have chosen my side. I stand with the fathers, mothers, and children from most of the rest of the world against the American Military Empire, and I am confident I will see it defeated in my day. Call me unpatriotic, call the dissent of a free man what you will, I have answered Eisenhower's great question:

Yes, there is another way for the world to live. I will believe that until the day I die.

This is why We the People should wholeheartedly commit itself a foreign policy of nonintervention. Our Revolution, forged in this fire, will change the world for the better. We will answer the question that Eisenhower asked of every sane individual. And it is now becoming apparent the world will change regardless. Our bankruptcy will also change the world, but in a far more chaotic fashion and we will have little control or care over whether the world that survives will be better or not.

Do I stand alone or not? In Liberty,

Jake, the Champion of the Constitution

www.CampaignForLiberty.com

[Reach the Author Here!]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings in part or full of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic.

Veritas numquam perit. Veritas odit moras. Veritas vincit. Truth never perishes. Truth hates delay. Truth conquers.

 

 - from Shinedown "Sound of Madness."  A special note to the reader who replied on this article to my personal email telling me to "burn in h*ll"among other expletives.  Guess what?  I am the sound of your madness, this truth is your medicine.

_____________________________________________________________

Summary of Articles for Jake, the Champion of the Constitution (10/1/2008)

SENATE PASSES BAILOUT! And What to Do, NOW!
Published: October 2, 2008
Senate voted at 9:07PM Wednesday evening to pass the $700 billion Paulson Plan bailout. A House vote will either be forced immediately or, at the latest, on Friday. This article has all the critical info and steps outlined to get informed, and then write and call your US House Representative immediately!

 _____________________________________________________________

 Other Afghanistan and Pakistan Articles by the Author

The Next American War of Terror in Pakistan Continues - Marriot Hotel Bombing Portends Blowback Event on American Soil

Published: September 22, 2008
Welcome to next evolution of the Global War of Terror (GWOT) in Pakistan. Open your eyes and see the blowback possibilities for a Marriot Bombing on American soil. Bush is reducing our national security, as he has done since taking office in 2000.

WAR! America Attacks Pakistan
Published: September 5, 2008
Drunk on the opiate of the McCain and Obama "We Can Change" conventions, the American press fails to notice the first attack involving American ground forces on Pakistani soil.

A Salute to Malalai Joya - Afghanistan's Tom Paine
Published: August 8, 2008
Malalai Joya, a brave lady and banned legislator from Afghanistan, fights for justice, human rights, and democracy. She battles both the Warlords in power, the Taliban... and the American Government, which is probably why you have never heard of her.

Response to Disgruntled Reader on "Malalai Joya" Article
Published: August 11, 2008
The pain and psychological shock trauma of 9/11 and the War on Terror continues. When will the shock wear off?

Utter Chaos in Afghanistan and Pakistan as Barack Obama Sanctions Preemptive War
Published: July 20, 2008
or "What? There's a War there too?" War Deaths Ratchet Up as Barack Obama and the Neocons Continue to Ignore Geopolitical and Cultural Realities

Iraq Smolders as American War Deaths in Afghanistan Reach All-Time Records
Published: August 2, 2008
With Iraq "Pacified" for McBama's Election, American Troops are dying off at record rates in America's "oh, that Other War" in Afghanistan

©2008 Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Last modified: Friday, October 3, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.

---

More Articles By Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution

---