"We'll Be Right Back..." (My Farewell to Jon Stewart)

"We'll be right back..."

Something one of my heroes has said during each and every episode of The Daily Show.

Tonight, as of 12:01pm EST on the 7th of August 2015, that assurance ceases to exist in its current familiar form.

The Daily Show will live on, as will Mr. Jon Stewart. In my list of the Top 5 people (who I have never met and were living at some point during my 24+ years) that have greatly influenced me artistically, creatively, and/or intellectually during my lifetime, Stewart joins the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Barack Obama, Casey Neistat, and Till Lindemann.

Jon Stewart was the narration to my political awakening when I was in the 8th grade during the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. I had been watching Stewart for years prior, but without realization of the witty nuance of his commentary. The earliest indelible memory of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart that I have - like many other fans - is that of the first post-9/11 episode. For the past month I have been watching The Daily Show's 'Month of Zen' web stream, which featured every episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart from start 11 January 1999 to now, in marathon fashion without geographic restrictions. I have the live webstream on my MacBook Pro as I fall asleep at night and it is likewise there to greet me in the morning. My recent weeks' repertoire is a great departure from the distant nights at my Grandmother's remote Sauble Beach cottage adjusting a bunny-ear antenna on a television set many decades my senior just to have a luxury beyond just electricity.

Like other articles that have been written in the past few months since Stewart announced his retirement plans, now is where I start to create a playlist of assorted episodes... However, I will do no such thing. But only because I have already done so previously: TheNolanK - May 2012 & Mic - June 2012.

I could comment on how Jon Stewart has utilized The Daily Show format to transcend comedy and politics ascending to unparalleled and unprecedented status... However, I will do no such thing. But only because I have already done so previously - in print and online: Mic - April 2012,  TheNolanK - April 2012, OU Daily - May 2012, UWire - May 2012, & The Santa Clara - May 2012.

Instead, I will take relief in how I am parting ways with Jon Stewart. I subscribe to the old maxim that suggests "You should never meet your heroes". While I abide by that maxim, I do reserve the right to amend my position on heroes. In the case of Christopher Hitchens, my vicarious connection via exhaustive texts, Opinion Articles, YouTube Debates, and feature-length documentaries was ripped away from me due to Hitch's untimely defeat at the hands of the spectre of death. Speculation has already gripped the internet in regards to what Stewart's next move might be, with recent reports suggesting a return to stand-up comedy.

Stewart was never more damning than during his relentless (and necessarily crucial) critique of the Bush administration in the lead-up to the Iraq War, the invasion of Iraq, the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished', and the subsequently poor handling of a destabilized Middle East. Even when Stewart let the sitting duck subjects of satire that were, and often still are, President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney have a pass for that week's egregious Iraqi errors, Stewart would focus his efforts on truly important issues such as healthcare efforts for Veterans Affairs and 9/11 First Responders.

The main line of contention that Stewart's critics had was that he would often depart from basic political satire into activist commentary while hiding behind the job title 'Comedian'. Other than the hilarious fact that it was often Fox News personalities that accused Stewart of poor journalistic standards, selling a biased narrative, or (more recently) representing a political entity, Stewart never backed down from a challenge, never used miscontextualization to make his point, and never ceased to be genuine. In fact, that is the justification that Stewart has offered for his retirement, citing that The Daily Show "doesn't deserve an even slightly restless host, and neither do you [the audience]".

"You coulda had all this!"

There is no conceivable way in which The Daily Show with Trevor Noah can even begin to replicate 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' and its 18 Emmys, 2 Peabodys, 1 Grammy, and numerous other awards, accolades, and accomplishments - nor should it. Just as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart blazed a trail in the American political dialectic, so too must The Daily Show with Trevor Noah forge its own destiny. Stephen Colbert did it and John Oliver continues to do it. Never has there been such bigger shoes to fill by a vastly smaller footprint.

From the bottom of my heart, truly and sincerely, I thank you for the amazing ride that was The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - and may you enjoy retirement and enjoy the time with your family you so manifestly deserve.

-NK

Connect with TheNolanK on Social Media:

Drones in America's Skies: The Policy for Targeting Americans

Amidst the hold up of President Barack Obama's nominee for Director of the CIA, John Brennan, in Congress, opposition Republicans are inquiring about the possibility of armed drones flying in American skies. This might seem like an Orwellian inquiry directed towards the Ministry of Peace, but the notion is not that distant from reality. An American, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, has already been killed by an armed CIA drone in Yemen. Also, UAV's have been authorized to fly over U.S. airspace. Currently, there have been zero missions involving armed CIA drones in the U.S. Regardless, here are the points needing to be addressed.

The Sanctioned Killing of an American Citizen:

Anwar Al-Aulaqi in Yemen (2008)

Anwar Al-Aulaqi was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico in 1971. He was an American citizen from birthright, but did adopt Yemeni citizenship, becoming a dual citizen. He sought to bring destruction and terror to American soil via his involvement with Al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP). He eventually became Al-Qaeda's recruiter, having proven contact with Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan and the underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab [Link Here]. The Obama administration has authorized the killings of numerous foreign terrorists, but this case specifically deals with an American citizen. The uproar surrounding this has not been in defense of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, but rather concern that a U.S. President, with just a quick signature, can authorize the summary execution of an American once they leave U.S. borders. This notion is entirely false.

Upon learning about the addition of Anwar Al-Aulaqi to CIA and JSOC kill lists without "charge, trial, or conviction," his father, Nasser Al-Aulaqi sued Barack Obama, in his official capacity as President of the United States; Robert Gates, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; and Leon Panetta, in his official capacity as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. In effect, Nasser Al-Aulaqi's filing of this suit expedited the process by which an American may be targeted. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ultimately dismissed the charges, but the ruling to dismiss included a lengthy justification. On 30 September 2011, Anwar Al-Aulaqi was killed in Yemen by Hellfire missile fired by an Armed Reaper Drone. Interestingly, in Islam, 'Hellfire' is known as 'Jahannam' - a visceral image of hell - which Anwar Al-Aulaqi alluded to when making theological appeals for supporting Al-Qaeda. [Here is the full text for the court case]

The Drones in U.S. Airspace:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Drone

This topic has two separate aspects. The FAA allows private citizens are allowed to fly small unmanned drones in certain conditions. This policy has precipitated such recent events as a pilot of an Alitalia flight reporting the sighting of a drone in dangerous proximity to New York's JFK airport [Link Here]. The small 4 rotor craft was not a government drone. On a technical note, while UAV does stand for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, the U.S. Government refers to its aircraft as Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) or Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA).

As for military grade drones like the MQ-1B Predator, MQ-9 Reaper, and the RQ-4 Global Hawk, the policy is quite different. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, an agency under the Department of Homeland Security, regularly uses 9 unarmed Predator drones for reconnaissance purposes along America's borders [Link Here]. The ethical questions enters the frame due to the lack of an active, hands on pilot, opting instead for a remote controller. Essentially, this is no different from conventional patrol aircraft, like helicopters - save for the fact that agents in conventional aircraft are generally armed.

Recent Developments:

Senator Rand Paul contacted both John Brennan, currently the 'Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism' as well as aforementioned nominee for director of the CIA, and Attorney General Eric Holder to inquire about "the President ha[ving] the power to authorize lethal force, such as drone strikes, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial." Senator Paul published both of the responses he received. An analysis of the documents have yielded important insight into the domestic drone program. John Brennan referred Senator Paul's question regarding the President's power to the Department of Justice.

The CIA's Fatal Error: Doubling Down on a Double Agent

The blatant infractions on basic protocols by the CIA culminated in unsuspected attack with devastating effect. The central downfall in this instance was exactly the nature of human intelligence – it was simply human error. A combination of anxiety, anticipation, and an eagerness to follow through with the assigned mission directives made the usually methodical and careful CIA agents overlook the basic procedures that had allowed them to feel so invincible.

The mistake on the part of the CIA was that in their excitement in learning about and then pursuing al-Balawi was that they put all of their eggs in one basket – or rather put too many officers in one building with their informant. The plan penned by the Pakistani Taliban and al-Balawi is not in itself all that sophisticated on their end. It relied more upon the naïve enthusiasm of an American intelligence community wearied by war. The CIA lulled themselves into a false sense of security due in part because of the rigorous and comprehensive security minded pre-requisites and checks they had. It was the long-term success of these compiled policies that facilitated this almost complacent mindset that would precipitate the environment in which this attack would occur.

This scenario involved a breakdown at numerous levels. However, the extent of the breakdown becomes greater the closer the contact with the Jordanian al-Balawi became. It seems almost like a given fact that the President of the United States or the Director of the CIA would react to this sort of potential scenario in a given manner. With as many irons in the fire as the American intelligence community, let alone the CIA has, that orders would be given with an imperative tone in regards to the potential success of the unfolding mission. This type of action has been taken in the past and will continue to be taken in the future.

Humam al-Balawi in a video

What has to be examined is, what I feel to be, the two other factors/variables: the Jordanian intelligence contact and the actual CIA handlers in Khost. It is no secret that the Jordanian intelligence service is easily one of the preeminent forces in the Middle East; and because of that America is lucky to count it in its allies. America is really just unable to jump into Jordanian intelligence affairs and tell them to implement reforms suited to what we see as our mission. Since this is a realized implausibility, the proper course of action is now just to alter how our interactions with the Jordanians are conducted. This is seemingly the only way we can account for a needed change.

Ultimately, the central fault on behalf of the CIA was because of the agents on the ground. As far as actual recourse or discipline for the involved members, that is not a possibility because sadly and unfortunately the people at fault were also the ones who met their ultimate demise in the attack. But this is also groundwork for a learning exercise of why the basic security checks are such a central part to maintaining the integrity and safety of the CIA agents and the bases. Granted there was quite an extensively fabricated background suggesting who al-Balawi was supposed to be and also what he was supposed to potentially yield – all of that could have been undone by simply following basic protocol.   

Yes, there are the occasional breakdown leading to a massive failure along the like of al-Balawi and Khost. While this was the single deadliest attack on the CIA in nearly 2 decades, over the history of the Agency, coldly put, it still averages out to a fairly high success rate. Whether the deep progress into Chapman Base in Khost, Afghanistan made by al-Balawi was a result of intimate knowledge with CIA handling protocols or rather just an attack of the greatest opportunity; the engrained necessity in the CIA to keep meetings and interactions with contacts as clandestine as possible unwittingly circumvented the infrastructure of security protocols designed to prevent this type of attack and infiltration from happening.

Here is a brief 5 minute clip from the film Zero Dark Thirty. This scene is a depiction of the events that transpired at the CIA station in Khost on that fateful December day in 2009. The depiction of the suicide attack in the film is a great emulation of how Joby Warrick describes it in his book. I feel this adds educational and commentary value to my critique. In the scene's dialogue, you can clearly hear the pleas by the female station chief to bypass regular security protocols.

FAIR USE NOTICE: I am using this brief video clip in the capacity of a student, academic, and as an educator. I do not claim any ownership rights to the video footage and in no way will I make a financial profit in the course of using this clip. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Canada's Continuing Commitment to NATO and ISAF

I wrote this analysis for a course I took called '9/11 and the War on Terror.' This policy memo served as our term paper, in lieu of a traditional final exam. Our assignment was to examine an aspect of the war in Afghanistan. I chose this topic because of my Canadian roots and my interest in NATO. Learn how early friendly fire incidents and experiencing the highest proportional rate of fatalities amongst active ISAF partners provided Canada’s policy makers with adequate justification for actually expressing the public’s will in regards to reducing military engagement. However, an analysis of public opinion, voting trends, and implemented policy clearly demonstrate Canada’s commitment to NATO and ISAF, even amidst the Afghan disengagement.

Executive Summary

The first Canadian casualties in the Afghanistan war were inflicted as a result of friendly fire. A U.S. F-16 fighter pilot bombed a staging area for a Canadian training exercise in a location known as the Tarnak Farms.[1] This incident happened just over six months into the Afghan war. By examining the background of this friendly fire incident, insight to the continued Canadian commitment can be gleaned. Furthermore, Canada has experienced the highest proportional rate of fatalities amongst active ISAF partners in Afghanistan.[2] Canadian policymakers proceeded to utilize this information when they reduced troop levels at a time when the U.S. was planning a troop surge.[3] This reality altered and shifted Canada’s role with ISAF in Afghanistan. Canada then began disengagement in Afghanistan and reverting to a support role in the ISAF mission.

Public opinion polls taken in Canada after the 9/11 attacks concerning U.S. – Canadian relations and of the war in Afghanistan under the Stephen Harper government will illustrate the opinion landscape. From there, government policies will be examined for mention or justification vis-à-vis public opinion. Historically, Canada and the U.S. have shared the world’s largest economic relationship. They also share the world’s largest border. Canada’s empathy for the 9/11 terrorist attack against the U.S. will also be represented in public opinion polls. So it seems as if Canada must continue to support their southern neighbors in endeavors of war as a way to bolster other more beneficial channels. The relationship Canada has with the U.S. appears to be one based upon ideological obligation, rather than one of true support. So it appears that friendly fire incidents, while not the U.S.’s intentions, and a higher rate of soldier deaths provide Canada’s policy makers with adequate justification for actually expressing the public’s will in regards to reducing military engagement. Similarly, voting patterns for the national government are indicative of the waning support for the war in Afghanistan. The elections in Canada in 2008 and 2006 will provide data as to how Canada voted in a post 9/11 political theater during the lead-up to the U.S. surge. The analysis and evaluation of public opinion, voting trends, and implemented policy clearly demonstrate Canada’s commitment to NATO and ISAF, even amidst the Afghan disengagement.

Canada’s Role in Afghanistan

            Canada is a founding signatory of the North Atlantic Treaty. As such, Canada is one of the most senior partners in the alliance, often taking on roles of leadership. After the September 11^th attack against the U.S. in 2001, by virtue of their NATO membership, Canada was thrust into the Afghan War. In response to the attack, the U.S. invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty which effectively made the attack on the U.S. an attack against all of NATO’s members. This is the first, and only, time this common defense article has been invoked. The response was assembled, but how the joint military force would manifest had yet to be established. It was not until late 2001 that the UN passed Security Council Resolution 1386, which “authorize[d], as envisaged in Annex 1 to the Bonn Agreement, the establishment for 6 months of an International Security Assistance Force.”[4] As the UN mentioned, the outline for the ISAF force was described in the Bonn Agreement and was charged with, “assist[ing] in the maintenance of security for Kabul and its surrounding areas” with the understanding that “such a force could, as appropriate, be progressively expanded to other urban centres and other areas.”[5]

            According to the Canadian Minister of Defence, the first Canadian personnel to arrive in Afghanistan was, “approximately 40 JTF2 (Joint Task Force) Operators on the ground in Afghanistan, in or around Kandahar.”[6] As the force build up in Afghanistan continued into 2002, Canada was fully compliant with ISAF military directives and they fought alongside their American and ISAF counter-parts. NATO assumed command of ISAF on August 11^th, 2003.[7] After the change in command, Canadian forces began their contribution to NATO, Operation Athena. Based in the capital, Kabul, and later expanding to Kandahar Province, Operation Athena focused on peace building exercises and civilian population interaction.[8]

Fratricide and Troop Casualty Rates

            During a Canadian only training exercise in April of 2002, Canadian forces would be dealt their single largest troop loss since the Korean War. The absolutely tragic nature of the Canadian loss was multiplied by the fact that it was “an American F-16 fighter jet [that] dropped a laser-guided 225-kilogram bomb” on the Tarnak farms training area. The devastating result was a total of 4 deaths and 8 injuries, marking the first loss of Canadian forces in the Afghan War. There was a major outcry from the Canadian public and outrage from government officials.  Once more details about the tragic friendly fire incident were revealed, the anger grew. There was even public criticism from the Canadian military that was directed at the U.S. forces. General Ray Henault, Canadian Chief of Staff, immediately stated that, “Without a doubt, there was a misidentification of the Canadians and what they were doing on the ground and that was obviously the cause of this accident.”[9] In response, President George W. Bush offered a public apology for the tragedy and commended and thanked the Canadian forces for their continued support.

USSOCOM: Firefights & Finances Amidst Fiscal Austerity

     The U.S.’s tier one fighting force is known as United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). The purpose of USSOCOM is to “Provide fully capable Special Operations Forces to defend the United States and its interests [and to] Synchronize planning of global operations against terrorist networks.” [1] USSOCOM is the Special Forces equivalent to the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM), which is the central unified command for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. Whereas CENTCOM oversees the command for the general enlisted military forces, USSOCOM was specifically created for Special Forces components of the four aforementioned branches of the military. As all of these unified commands are military entities, they fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.

     USSOCOM is as unique as it is integral. The President utilizes the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) as an advisory position when it comes to making military policy. Per the synthesis and interactions with the JCS and the intelligence community, the President can then issue a directive for a military operation or covert action. In terms of Special Operations, this is where the connection between policy and engagement proceeds. USSOCOM takes the tier one Special Forces operators from all branches of the military, commanding “all active and reserve Special Operations Forces of all armed forces stationed in the United States.” [2]  USSOCOM is located at the MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. Specifically, USSOCOM is comprised of U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), Naval Special Warfare Command (NAVSPECWARCOM), Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) and Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC). [3]  With such a breadth of command control, USSOCOM has roughly “57,000 active duty, Reserve and National Guard Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Department of Defense civilians” at its disposal. [4]  Given the weight of the responsibility that USSOCOM has been charged with, their importance in U.S. defense cannot be overstated.

Operational History

     The Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the subsequent Nunn-Cohen Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 1987 laid the groundwork for the development of USSOCOM. The call for an upgrade to U.S. Special Forces and their capabilities arose from the strategic failures during the Iran Hostage Crisis. In early April of 1980, U.S. President Jimmy Carter authorized Operation Eagle Claw in an attempt to rescue the hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. [5]  The mission was an utter failure and arguably the death knell of the Carter administration. However, the U.S. military would learn from the operation’s failures and implement policy to prevent a recurrence of such failure. USSOCOM operates on two levels, one passive and one active. USSOCOM constantly pursues the best and emerging technologies to meet their equipment and arms requirements. In doing so, USSOCOM can be ready at a moment’s notice when called to the battlefield. The mission of USSOCOM is to not only have Special Forces at the ready, but to also make sure they have the necessary tools to get the job done. The caliber of the missions assigned to USSOCOM is unparalleled. For instance, their killing of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan during Operation Neptune Spear required cutting edge technology, highly advanced weaponry, and unrivaled training. It is specifically for this reason that adequate financing needs to be available for USSOCOM.

Financial Protocols

     USSOCOM is comprised of a combination of military branches, yet it is not reliant on any of them in regards to finances, appropriations, budgeting, and acquisitions. Representing about 1.5% of the Department of Defense’s annual Budget, "USSOCOM has its own budgetary authorities and responsibilities through a specific Major Force Program (MFP-11) in DOD’s budget." [6] [7] Within USSOCOM there is the Special Operations Research, Development, and Acquisition Center's (SORDAC). SORDAC is the link in the chain between the administration of USSOCOM and the holder of the purse, the U.S. Congress.

     Running USSOCOM is an expensive endeavor for the U.S. In 2011 that actual USSOCOM budget was $10.35 billion, in 2012 $10.47 billion was appropriated, and a slightly reduced $10.40 billion requested for fiscal year 2013. [8] USSOCOM handles mission specific equipment procurement on numerous levels. From small business contracts for small arms ammunition to emerging stealth technologies, USSOCOM is responsible for satisfying their own specific equipment requirements. [9]

     The needs of USSOCOM are constantly evolving as new technology becomes available, as well as in conjunction with an expansion of USSOCOM’s role in the U.S. military’s repertoire. As evidence of this, while the annual budget of USSOCOM has maintained at around $10 billion over the last three years, the allotment for overseas contingency operations (OCO’s) has shrunk by an average of 20% per fiscal year. [10] The routinization of OCO’s has led to the practice of the core budget incorporating what was previously accounted for in the OCO’s. So effectively the budget has maintained, but the line item breakdown demonstrates the U.S. reliance upon USSOCOM. Furthermore, USSOCOM’s 2013 budget justification describes “a new normal that requires Special Operations Forces (SOF) forces to be persistently forward-deployed.” [11]  Interestingly, while the line item budget accounts for every dollar USSOCOM spends, the specificity of what is entailed by “operational support” or “intelligence” is quite vague, even in the instances that a description is not obscured by being “classified.” [12]

     The specialized and adaptive platform that USSOCOM is modeled on includes fiscal considerations. Irrespective of the current state of the economy, the foreign strategic threats against the U.S. will still remain. Thus USSOCOM was designed to accomplish its goals on the bare minimum of budgetary funding. As a demonstration of this notion, USSOCOM was awarded the Department of Defense’s Better Buying Power Efficiency Award in November 2012 for “closing a capability gap with effective, timely, and affordable technologies.” [13]  This highly successful result was a product of SORDAC’s aim to “execute approved program profiles within 10% deviation of cost, schedule, and performance.” [14]

What Happened in Benghazi: The U.S. Response & Reactions

I want to discuss the armed assault of the U.S. consulate on the 11th of September 2012 in Benghazi, Libya. Not necessarily because I want to, but because I feel compelled to in light of the hyper-politicization by Republicans and FOX News. Even in light of all we now know, their continued perpetuation of false narratives and misconceptions have frustrated me and now I just want to finally clear up this non-issue. Now as a general disclaimer, I am NOT saying that there should be no concern in the media over Libya, I am NOT trying to minimize the tragedy that led to four brave Americans losing their lives, and I am NOT saying that there should not be an investigation or Congressional hearings. Now, let's begin.

To be clear on what I am arguing against, I will outline my concessions. Yes, the compound was not as secure as it should have been, but it was not a full scale embassy. The U.S. is still in the midst of fiscal turmoil, and as a result of austere fiscal policies, everything suffers - here it was the quality of security for the foreign consulates. And for a general outline and background for the events that transpired, here is the official time line of events that unfolded at the Benghazi consulate. [Links Here and Here] The myths that have entered the dialogue that can be addressed and thusly refuted by the timeline will not be mentioned here. 

1. Before the assault in Benghazi even began, the Republican leadership in Congress was trying to defund security resources in Libya. [Links Here and Here] While admittedly this is a fleeting assumption, it shows a continued trend of politicizing the events in Libya as well as Republican opposition to Obama's foreign policy. Perhaps if the mission had been able to fully operate to the extent it needed to, the threat of these armed militias could have been curbed during NATO's Operation Unified Protector.

2. The real-time intelligence being relayed to American military assets was murky. U.S. secretary of Defense Leon Panetta even said that the U.S. military lacked "real-time information." He went on to say, "You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, (We) felt we could not put forces at risk in that situation." [Link Here] This is a clear no brainer. If there is indeed chaos, you don't throw assets at the conflict without knowing what is going on. This impulsive inclination leads to naive consequences. Even when the U.S. military is readily prepared in a region and in an active war zone, sending reinforcement assets can have devastating consequences even when there is a fairly clear picture of what is unfolding. [In reference to the 2011 downing of a Chinook Helicopter in Afghanistan, which killed 30 U.S. Special Forces Operators - Link Here]

3. Critics of the actual response have been throwing out 'what ifs' and 'Should have, Could have, Would haves' after the fact, failing to account that hindsight's 20/20. The claim that the U.S. government failed to act quickly to help the Americans under attack is reprehensible. Most notably, the likes of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and other Republicans have been saying that the U.S. should have responded immediately with U.S. fighter jets stationed in southern Italy - or with other regional air assets like Armed UAV Drones or AC-130 Gunships. This would have had little to no efficacy due to the urbanized nature of the consulate's location and the extremely high risk for collateral damage and civilian fatalities. In direct response, U.S. secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said "these aircraft were not stationed near Benghazi and they were not an effective option." [Links Here and Here] 

An F-16 from the Aviano Air Base

4. Furthermore, even if F-16's were sent from Aviano Air Base, the nearest U.S. air base in Italy, it actually had the potential to be devastating. Here two separate premises that are true must be expanded upon: 1) That the real time conditions on the ground were murky and 2) That the attacking faction was heavily armed. The militants obviously wanted to inflict as much damage as they could on American assets. Sending an F-16 would have fed in perfectly to their plan, due to a long forgotten post-Gaddafi development - the proliferation of nearly 20,000 MANPADs in Libya. [Links Here and Here] MANPADS are Man-portable air-defense systems, which are basically shoulder fired anti-aircraft munitions like the FIM-92 Stinger. So if these heavily armed militants had gotten their hands on an anti-aircraft missile, and F-16 flyover would have resulted in a tragic addition of loss. Not only would the consulate's security personnel have been lost, but the reinforcements would have been walking into an ambush. Again, this demonstrates the need for prudence and explains why hastily sending reinforcements into this murky situation could not be justified.

Now, to address the recent reactions, I will deconstruct the criticisms of Susan Rice and examine John McCain's hyper-politicization of this issue. First and foremost, Susan Rice is a brilliant intellectual and academic. From the State Department website: "Ambassador Rice received her M.Phil (Master’s degree) and D.Phil. (Ph.D) in International Relations from New College, Oxford University, England, where she was a Rhodes Scholar. She was awarded the Chatham House-British International Studies Association Prize for the most distinguished doctoral dissertation in the United Kingdom in the field of International Relations. Ambassador Rice received her B.A. in History with honors from Stanford University, where she graduated junior Phi Beta Kappa and was a Truman Scholar." [Link Here] But the attacks hurled at her since are quite laughable.

1. The talking points given to Susan Rice by the Intelligence Community are as follows: [Link Here]

UN Ambassador Susan Rice

- "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

- "This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated."

- "The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens."

In this context, she was just a mouth piece. It was a failure of intelligence that led to her making the remarks that she did. And as popularized in the 2012 presidential debates, President Obama did refer to the assault on the Benghazi consulate as a terrorist attack. Just like Condoleezza Rice and, especially, Colin Powell - their erroneous remarks concerning Iraq and WMD's were due to bad intelligence.

2. Susan Rice was not responsible for the creation of the talking points, nor did she alter them. Sources cited by CBS News and others said the Director of National Intelligence's office made statements to the effect that "the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack - with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes." [Link Here] Even after this was confirmed by testimony made by General David Petraeus, the Republican narrative still apportioned blame to Susan Rice. Quite rightly, this led Adam Schiff, Democratic Representative from California, to say, "Gen. Petraeus made it clear that that change was made to protect classified sources of information, not to spin it, not to politicize it and it wasn't done at the direction of the white house. That really ought to be the end of it, but it isn't. So we have to continue to go around this merry go round, but at a certain point when all the facts point in a certain direction, we're going to have to accept them as they are and move on." [Link Here]

3. John McCain has repeatedly highlighted the lack of information being released about the Benghazi assault. This is hilariously ironic in light of the fact that he purposely absent from an official classified briefing about the details of the investigation into Benghazi. Perhaps if McCain had attended the briefing instead of spending his time in a hyper-partisan fashion by politicizing the attack, he would have answers to the assertions he keeps blindly hurling at the Obama administration. [Link Here] In fact, when McCain was questioned by CNN about this issue, he responded by saying, "I have no comment about my schedule and I'm not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media," McCain said. Asked why he wouldn't comment, McCain grew agitated: "Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?” [Link Here] I think this just demonstrates the declining integrity of John McCain and the withering of a long political career. He should have taken the loss in 2008 as a nod to go ahead and retire.

The investigation into what truly happened in Libya and how the Obama administration responded is  currently ongoing. But the fact that the investigation has already been launched is the important takeaway. As the revelations emerge, the picture will be more clearly formed. But until then, the defamation of Susan Rice and the criminal accusations being hurled at the Obama administration are based on ignorance, partisanship, and imprudence.

I don't claim to be an outright expert on all things State Department or Classified Intelligence, but I am quite the authority on post-Arab Spring Libya. Check out my NATO Project Page to see some of the research I have done on this subject. Please share this so the uninformed can become informed and we can finally stop hearing about this hyper-politicization. Because amidst the partisan narrative, the real issue has become lost in the fog of politics.

One Year Later: Retrospection & Analyzing the Recent Dialogue

The DEVGRU Weapon of Choice: A SOPMOD M4A1

Today marks the one year anniversary of Osama Bin Laden's terminus at the hands of DEVGRU. The world's most wanted man was finally brought to justice in his Abottabad compound. Delivering this justice was two 5.56 NATO rounds fired from a SOPMOD M4A1 rifle courtesy of a SEAL Team 6 operator. He conveyed this accomplishment by declaring "For God and country - Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo!" These powerful words, a combination of a Latin phrase and the operational codename for their primary target, were the first uttered in a post-Bin Laden world.

In the 365 days since this successful mission was executed with surgical precision, a partisan dialogue has emerged in regards to Operation Neptune Spear. Here are two critiques of how President Barack Obama has utilized this success in the context of an election year, followed by my response:

1. Obama really didn't do anything of major operational significance, he just gave authorization for an obvious decision.

This is an argument from ignorance, plain and simple. The outcome had the potential to be the worst American military fiasco since Operation Eagle Claw during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, or more recently in comparison to 'Black Hawk Down' in 1993. The location of this high-valued target was in the borders of the sovereign nation of Pakistan and only minutes away from the Pakistan Military Academy, their equivalent to West Point. Compounding the risk was the current anti-American political climate among Pakistanis. Not withstanding the fact this would be the first time a nuclear state would have their sovereignty directly challenged in such a manner - adding the unprecedented, and albeit unlikely, potential of two nuclear powers going directly to war with each other.

A Glimpse inside the Situation Room

Furthermore, as Commander in Chief, Barack Obama is the supreme commander of the United States Armed Forces. This integral role should not be overlooked. SEAL Team 6 launching a ground operation was never set in stone. Obama was presented with three potential courses of action. The first was a joint US/Pakistani ground operation; easily the most diplomatic. Second was having the site renovated from a compound to a crater, courtesy of a B2 Spirit Stealth Bomber. Third was the option of the Seal Team 6 raid. The decision to go with the latter of the three options was not the easiest choice to come to. The joint operation had numerous potentials for error: intel leaks, logistical time delays, and a lack of prior precedent for how to conduct a US/PAK operation. The sortie would have guaranteed target annihilation, but would have had catastrophic levels of collateral damage - and no bodies to account for the mission's justification. So while the third option looked the most tantalizing, it put 79 American Soldiers on the ground. This meant boots on foreign soil, in pursuit of an unconfirmed target.

Regardless of what the President may or may not be doing in regards to referencing the success of this operation, credit must be given where credit is due. Diminishing Obama's role in Bin Laden's take down is more petty, ignorant, and deleterious than what any superimposed political narrative is accusing the President of doing.

2. Obama is employing divisive and unethical rhetoric when using Bin Laden's death as a part of his 2012 campaign platform.

There are so many elements wrong with this assertion. Most prominently is the fact that the majority of these attacks are coming from the right. While there may be legitimate critiques, Republicans are being hypocritical in their claims. The outline for what the Obama 2012 campaign is doing in terms of using national security, foreign policy, and successes in a war are no different than the Bush 2004 campaign [As Slate Magazine Demonstrates].

Should President Obama be able to laud the success of killing Bin Laden as part of his campaign? Without question. Especially because of his visit to Afghanistan and Bagram Airbase yesterday. To question Obama's visit to an active war zone, to visit American troops, and on the anniversary of Bin Laden's death, simply proved the foolishness and ignorance of those accusing him of grabbing cheap political gains.

Personally, I cannot think of a stronger message to send to the world than to return to the homeland of al-Qaeda on the one year anniversary of their founder's demise at our hands, and outlining a way to responsibly draw down a decade long conflict. 

History has shown that hasty military withdrawals that are irrespective and inconsiderate of real world implications have extremely negative consequences. And before anybody scoffs at President Obama's announcement to commit US and NATO forces to Afghanistan for the next decade, remember how all of this was started in the first place. Like it or not, al-Qaeda grew from the seeds of the American-backed Afghan Mujahadeen that fought against the Soviets forces during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The gravitas of this salute to America's determination and accomplishments easily exceeds Bush's landing on an aircraft carrier to proclaim 'Mission Accomplished.' And if the question were asked "Would Mitt Romney visit American troops at Bagram Airbase, in an active war zone, on the one year anniversary of Bin Laden's demise?" The answer would be 'No.' Mitt Romney decided to just mail it in.

Personally, I took time to reflect on the events surrounding Bin Laden's death. I found that certain sentiments that haven't changed, and I ultimately came to the same conclusion. To convey my current thoughts on the matter, I will quote from an oped I wrote for the University of Oklahoma's student news paper a year ago:

"Regardless, this is a time for celebration; if not solely for the death of a fellow human being, but for putting and end to what he [Osama Bin Laden] did and stood for. Hopefully a step in the direction of closure for those affected by the events of 9/11; and ultimately making it a little easier to breath for the Human Race as a whole."

[See my original op-ed in full at the OU Daily, Here] 

Jon Stewart: The Messiah of Political Satire

I originally wrote this article for PolicyMic, but slightly altered it from its original version. You can find the original published PolicyMic version here. In addition, after I published this on PolicyMic, the OU Daily also ran this article as an opinion column as well as a College News Aggregator UWire [Link Here].

President Obama on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on October 27th 2010

As a forethought, Yes, I am fully aware that I'm playing into the stereotype of the liberal-minded college student by saying this. Just like President Obama, I think Jon Stewart is brilliant.

In Barack Obama's recent Rolling Stone interview, the President said:

"I think Jon Stewart's brilliant. It's amazing to me the degree to which he's able to cut through a bunch of the nonsense – for young people in particular, where I think he ends up having more credibility than a lot of more conventional news programs do."

I certainly could not agree more. Jon Stewart's comedic genius has impacted me as a person on such a level that is only eclipsed by the late Christopher Hitchens. 

The earliest recollection I have of in regards to Jon Stewart is centered around 9/11. Much like everyone else, I remember the images of the planes smashing into the towers, the horrendous fires, and their eventual collapse. However, I also recall the moving and emotional introduction Jon Stewart gave on his first Daily Show after the attacks:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

It was this episode with which I am able to pin down the point of genesis for my affinity of Stewart. Since then, I've been drawn in by his whirlwind of comedic political satire, confronting the likes of Tucker Carlson on Crossfire, inviting Jim Cramer as a guest, and countless other public figures. Furthermore, quite a few comedic powerhouses got their start at The Daily Show as well, including: Stephen Colbert, Steve Carell, and Ed Helms.

The comedic credentials of The Daily Show go without saying. But, in conjunction with this visceral and upfront humor, true moments of journalistic genius have emerged. Looking back on the countless logged episodes on TheDailyShow.com, this claim is easily verified.

Jon Stewart has quite often made remarks to the effect that if it weren't for FOX News, he would easily lose more than half of the potential material for his show. Now I think it is quite obvious that I do not claim to be 'Fair and Balanced' but I can admit, objectively speaking, accomplishing that is impossible. However, for the company that does claim that, Jon Stewart has lead the charge against FOX News, 'the most powerful name in news.' By using the same exact tactics FOX News uses in their 'reporting/commentary,' Stewart demonstrates two salient points:

1) FOX News' hypocrisy in attempting to tie "Ground Zero Mosque" leader Imam Feisal Rauf to terrorism. In this clip, Stewart reveals how FOX News would be considered a terrorist command center, when the same flawed logic is applied. In a quite poetic juxtaposition, Stewart uses a clip of a Charlton Heston NRA speech to solidify his point.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

2) News Corp's [FOX News' parent company] second largest shareholder outside of the Murdoch family is Al-Waleed bin Talal,  the very same shadowy figure that FOX News launched a [hypocritical] scare tactics campaign against, also regarding the "Ground Zero Mosque."

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

To accentuate this point, here is one of my all-time favorite Daily Show pieces: 'Persians of Interest.' This entire series dubbed 'Jason Jones: Behind the Veil' demonstrates how they can accomplish extraordinary feats of journalism without having to use CNN or FOX News as their punching bag. The Daily Show set the gold standard in its coverage of the Iranian Green Revolution, which is an achievement to be heralded. Again, this is one of many examples where the Daily Show surpassed other news outlets in regards to critical world events.

Whether you lean to the right, the left, or forward, it is impossible to deny Jon Stewart's tremendous influence with Millennials. The Daily Show program is billed as a satirical comedy news show, but is certainly steeped in real world implications. From classic hits like 'Indecision' election coverage to 'Mess O'Potamia' Iraq war coverage, the Daily Show has remained consistently a cut above the rest. Whether a viewer is a hardcore fan like myself or a casual observer like President Obama, the gravitas of the Daily Show is easily perceivable. 

[Watching a Daily Show clip in one of my classes at OU.]

On a more official note, here are the list of awards the Daily Show has won:, according to Wikipedia: "Under host Jon Stewart, The Daily Show has risen to critical acclaim. It has received two Peabody Awards, for its coverage of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. Between 2001 and 2011, it has been awarded sixteen Emmy Awards in the categories of Outstanding Variety, Music or Comedy Series and Outstanding Writing for a Variety, Music or Comedy Program, and a further seven nominations. The show has also been honored by GLAAD, the Television Critics Association and the Satellite Awards. America (The Book), the 2004 bestseller written by Stewart and the writing staff of The Daily Show, was recognized by Publishers Weekly as its "Book of the Year", and its abridged audiobook edition received the 2005 Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album. In September 2010 Time magazine selected the series as one of "The 100 Best TV Shows of All-TIME"." 

So here's to hoping Jon Stewart extends his contract past the current 2013 agreement!