My favorite military analyst, Ralph Peters, was fired up last night on O’Reilly. He says Pakistan’s decision to arrest the 5 men who helped us locate Osama bin Laden should be the last straw. We should stop pretending Pakistan is an ally. We should cut off all funds to that country. He told O’Reilly that any member of Congress who votes to keep funding Pakistan will have blood on his/her hands.

Watch the whole thing. It’s a great segment.

(H/T Right Scoop via Conurls)

Fox News military analyst Lt. Col. Ralph Peters had a harsh assessment of President Obama over the WikiLeaks case. He called him a “gutless wonder” for being more concerned with his open internet constituency than the national security of this nation.

Peters argues that we have the ability to take down the WikiLeaks website, but Obama chooses not to. We could destroy their computers remotely, but Obama chooses not to.

I agree with Peters that it’s a joke for Eric Holder to promise an “investigation” when we could do much more. Keep in mind, it was only a few days ago that the DOJ literally confiscated around 75 websites it decided were breaking the law. No letters, no threats, no trials, no judge, no jury, just confiscation.

Apparently, selling knock off Gucci bags is a bigger offense than leaking 250,000 stolen classified documents.

When you go to any of the sites now you see a big banner from ICE trumpeting the fact that it took the website. So we’re supposed to believe the NSA is incapable of taking down WikiLeaks?

I don’t buy it.

No truer words have ever been spoken…

(hat tip Conurls)

I’m glad to see someone finally make the point in a major newspaper that I’ve been making on this blog for a long time. That we could eliminate the issues surrounding Gitmo if the terrorists were just executed on the battlefield after their interrogations.

Col. Ralph Peters writes in the NY Post today:

WE made one great mistake regarding Guantanamo: No terrorist should have made it that far. All but a handful of those grotesquely romanticized prisoners should have been killed on the battlefield.

The few kept alive for their intelligence value should have been interrogated secretly, then executed.

Terrorists don’t have legal rights or human rights. By committing or abetting acts of terror against the innocent, they place themselves outside of humanity’s borders. They must be hunted as man-killing animals.

Everyone should read the column in its entirety — it’s the best one of 2009.

Contrary to the ACLU narrative about America, we’re actually too nice and too humane when it comes to waging war.

I believe we should do everything in our power to avoid killing civilians, but when it comes to terrorists I believe we should have little mercy.

The CIA was on the right track with the secret black sites for interrogation in addition to Gitmo.

Unfortunately, it’s impossible for anyone to keep their damn mouths shut about any secret program. You simply cannot have a secret that won’t eventually end up on the front page of the NY Slimes Times.

For this reason, the strategy should be to imbed interrogators with special forces units.

When a high value terrorist is captured, he should be made to talk on the spot by any means necessary. After every last tidbit of information has been extracted he should be executed on the spot.

Then we have the information we need and without liberals howling about so-called “rights” for terrorists.

-Chris Jones

Anyone who hasn’t read the incredibly good column by Ralph Peters about the Iraq war, you’re missing out. He reflects on the current state of affairs in Iraq as we enter 2008, and how disgraceful the media coverage has been on the Iraq war since things have started turning around.

When the war was going badly it was on the front page of every paper in the country, but since the success of the troop surge your lucky to find it in the paper at all.

Of course, when someone is murdered or blown-up the war immediately returns to the front pages for as long as it takes to clean up the bodies.

As 2007 drew to a close, embarrassed journalists sought to play down American military successes and avoided questioning Democratic presidential contenders about their predictions of inevitable failure in Iraq. Magically, Iraq disappeared from the headlines – except on those rare occasions when a problem could be reported. At the close of a year of stunning progress, media stories on New Year’s Eve leapt to report that 2007 had been the deadliest year for US troops.

You had to read deep into the columns to learn that those casualties occurred in the first half of 2007, as we battled and defeated the terrorists and militias – or that, in recent months, American and Iraqi casualties have plummeted as a relative peace broke out.

Still, all that was just hushing up dirty family secrets in the media clan and an effort by left-leaning journalists and editors to protect the politicians they favor.

The greatest media story of 2007 was the one you never read (unless you read The Post): The year was a strategic catastrophe for Islamist terrorists – and possibly a historic turning point in the struggle against al Qaeda and its affiliates.

When the media realized that Iraq could no longer be used to flog the Bush Administration with on a daily basis, they immediately turned their sites to Afghanistan. When the U.S. is involved in military conflict, today’s media looks for a negative story anywhere it can find one.

The media has been slowly ramping up it’s negative coverage of Afghanistan, using misleading headlines and other tactics to mislead the public into thinking we’re losing yet another war.

Instead, as Iraq improved, we only heard how things were turning bad in Afghanistan. Political and media critics of our efforts to defeat Islamist terror attempt to discourage the American people (and voters) by downplaying progress anywhere and by raising the bar for success impossibly high.

As this column has maintained for years, Afghanistan is never going to become Iowa. Much of the country is still decades away from the electric light. Impoverished, backward and torn by three decades of war, it just isn’t going to meet civics-class norms anytime soon.

But the essential question regarding Afghanistan isn’t how closely Kandahar resembles Des Moines this week, but simply this: “Is Afghanistan a better place today, for the Afghan people and for our own security, than it was 9/10/01, when religious fanatics ruled the country and al Qaeda had a homeland?”

The answer, of course, is “Yes!”

But that won’t do for journalists or pols who’ve staked their reputations and careers on America’s failure. And now we’re seeing a shift to declaring all our efforts in vain because of the rising terror threat in Pakistan.

 The media very much wants the public to be aware that the beginning of 2007 was the deadliest year for our troops in Iraq.  What they don’t want the public to know and likely will never tell, is that 2007 was the deadliest year for terrorists worldwide since 2001.

-Chris Jones