2A Lessons from Afghanistan by Tom Reynolds
Joe Biden wanted to withdraw from Afghanistan in the worst possible way and that is exactly how he did it – in the worst possible way!!!
Biden wants to disarm American citizens but he left thousands of weapons, many military vehicles and even drones behind for a radical Muslim terrorist movement to use against us. Which begs the question: how well thought out are Biden’s and the left’s priority for taking guns away from American citizens? Is the left’s promise that the government will protect us as credible as Biden’s words that a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan is “not inevitable”?
There are reports of Taliban fighters rounding up weapons from Afghans. A Taliban official told Reuters “We understand people kept weapons for personal safety. They can now feel safe. We are not here to harm innocent civilians.” Doesn’t that sound similar to the rhetoric President Biden and the Democrat leadership has been telling the American public? The Taliban isn’t engaging in gun confiscation; it’s like gun buy backs only without money.
Joe Biden and the left want to eliminate most bail and empty our jails, since they believe it’s racism and not crime that put the convicts in prison. Apparently, they have the same feeling about 5,000 of Afghanistan’s most dangerous terrorism captives, that were set free after the Taliban seized control of the former American base at Bagram. It contained the “highest value” Taliban, al-Qaeda and Islamic State fighters captured on the battlefield. Those freed terrorists, like American criminals that are being released without bail or to protect the criminals from Covid, would never dream of returning to their previous evil ways. Right?
Not long ago, Biden implied that the government could use “F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons” against those who would “take on the government”. How many F15’s and nuclear weapons did the Taliban have?
Biden’s last statement implying the use of F-15s, nuclear weapons and advanced weaponry against American citizens deserves further exploration.
Lieutenant Colonel Wayne Phelps (USMC Retired) has written a terrific book called “On Killing Remotely”. It tells everything one might hope to know about drones (Remotely Piloted Aircraft or RPA’s) and especially “The Psychology of Killing with Drones”.
In the section entitled, The Decision Not to Kill: A Moral Victory, Phelps describes, “On rare occasions those who are commanded to kill human beings have the remarkable moral fiber necessary to stare directly into the face of the obedience-demanding authority and refuse to kill”. As an example, Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen, born in New Mexico, whose loyalty was to Al Qaeda – which, as we know, is dedicated to killing Americans. The American government had designated al-Awlaki as a Tier 1 target for killing by RPA for, as Phelps puts it, … a laundry list of justifiable reasons.” Legally, al-Awlaki was a domestic terrorist living abroad and it was a law enforcement issue not a military issue. But because he was in the hinterlands of Yemen, beyond the reach of law enforcement, the killing task was given to the military. Obama would personally be calling to authorize taking the shot.
The RPA pilot is quoted as saying, “Since this guy was an American citizen, people had a problem within the (RPA) squadron. We thought it was illegal and refused to do it. When the leadership told them to shut up and color (follow orders) that commander was dismissed and that line was taken away from us and given to the CIA…They (the CIA) had different rules to fight under”.
Al-Alwaki was killed by RPA strike in Yemen in 2011.
American soldiers refused to kill an American citizen, simply because he was an American and in spite there being no doubt about him being involved in murders of Americans. The American Civil Liberties Union should be proud! Perhaps Biden, and more importantly the entire leftist movement, should realize that the American military’s human beings are not the same as the drones they operate. They have minds and consciences and took an oath to defend the Constitution. (Something many on the left did – including Biden - but maybe aren’t exactly rabid about following).
Phelp’s book also explores the dangers of removing human beings from the decision-making process about killing human beings; just create an algorithm and let the robots take over. Weren’t there Arnold Schwarzenegger movies about that subject?
Of course, the “top brass” in the military are political appointments and may be willing to buy position with loyalty to a politician rather than the Constitution. Have they become a part of the D.C. Swamp? (Could I be referring to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley?) Would Milley “have the remarkable moral fiber necessary to stare directly into the face of the obedience-demanding authority (Biden or Susan Rice) and refuse to kill.”
On the other hand, events indicate that the CIA seems to have its feet firmly planted in the muddy bottom of the D.C. Swamp.
The military take an oath that they only have to obey the “lawful” orders of their superiors. Do the D.C. Swamp denizens take a similar oath or does politics make all things lawful?
What was it that the forefathers were concerned about: Big government? Politicians dedicated to careers rather than country? Americans’ rights?
The topic of using the military against American citizens should be explored in much more depth. But the point is that there are those (many?) in the American Military who would resist using military force against Americans. But probably not so many D.C. Swamp denizens would share that same ethical and moral values. And the latter are the same people that want to take away your guns.
