Retired Army General: ‘Somebody Failed to Appreciate the Militarily Significant Aspects of Terrain’

IMAGE: Layout of the Butler Farm Show fairgrounds, Butler, Pa., where a sniper fired several shots at President Donald J. Trump, and hit his right ear, during his July 13, 2024, rally there. The shooter was roughly 150 yards away from Trump, and to the left of the president and Secret Service counter-snipers. (RedState graphic by Neil W. McCabe from Google Earth image)

(This article first appeared in RedState.com: https://redstate.com/mccabe/2024/07/14/retired-army-general-somebody-failed-to-appreciate-the-militarily-significant-aspects-of-terrain-n2176868)

By: Neil W. McCabe, Media Fellow

The retired Army general officer who led Kurdish Peshmerga guerilla troops in Iraq and who now serves as a senior staffer for a Florida congressman told RedState, as a military man, the Secret Service must look at what went wrong before the July 13 assassination attempt on President Donald J. Trump.

“They’ve got to do an absolutely serious after-action review, not just for their sake, not just for the sake of any future presidents, but the sake of this country,” said Brig. Gen. Ernest C. Audino, who was commissioned as a second lieutenant upon his graduation from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

“They got to figure out where the failures occurred, and it’s got to be an honest after-action or review—no thin skins—and if you fouled up, own up to it because there were failures along the way,” said the general, who is a senior military fellow at the Washington-based Gold Institute for International Strategies.

“My hypothesis is somebody failed to appreciate the militarily significant aspects of terrain,” he said.

Audino said it is his contingent assessment that mistakes made before the rally led to a potential catastrophe affecting the American political system and the world’s geopolitical stability.

Audino: The terrain tells you where threats can make you vulnerable

The general said that the Army has a process for making threat assessments that would have produced for the Secret Service personnel a limited set of locations where a hostile actor could attack the president.

He said the Army calls the battlespace analysis process OAKOC for obstacles, avenues of approach, key terrain, observation and fields of fire, and cover and concealment.

“Without any other information right now, my guess is there were likely failures during the planning and reconnaissance phase,” said the former director of nuclear support for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

“When they received the mission, they should have initiated the reconnaissance out to the area, and someone should have been going through this checklist,” he said.

He said the first item on the checklist is determining the no-go areas on the terrain. These are the places where no one would or could go.

Security personnel next need to figure out the avenues of approach or the go-terrain, he said.

Then, they must determine which pieces of terrain along the avenues of approach that offer advantage to the hostile actor—that’s your key terrain, he said.

Among the sites of key terrain on the Butler Farm Show fairgrounds were the rooftops, Audino added.

“We can say all of those high points in the area like those rooftops, and there weren’t many of them, so it’s not like they were overwhelmed by the sheer number of rooftops. There were only a few that were relevant to the area of operation,” he noted.

Once you have identified key terrain, such as the rooftops in Butler, the military mindset is to determine how the hostile actor could attack, he said.

Audino: Why weren’t the rooftops secured?

“Where could an enemy achieve observation and fields of fire that’s relevant to the mission of this event that’s coming up?” he asked.

Throughout the interview, Audino kept returning to the rooftops, and where a hostile actor could be concealed.

“Once you’ve identified the key terrains, avenues to the terrain, and places in the terrain where the hostile actor could observe his targets and conceal himself, the Soldier is left with a finite set of locations to be secured,” he said.

He said that then you have to find areas where a hostile actor or threat could find cover and concealment.

“Once you’ve identified those areas, then you’ve got to secure them some way,” he continued.

“Why was there no presence on that rooftop or near that rooftop? Why was there no effective fire over watching that rooftop?” he asked.

The general said he understood that security personnel were in position, but they did not stop the attack.

“Was it that they weren’t alert, or they had other sectors they were watching?” he asked.

“There are times when the hostile actor has the advantage because he has initiative, but terrain analysis helps you identify his most likely courses of action,” he said. “But you never have perfect knowledge.”

One factor in the Butler shooting is that law enforcement has a different culture and different processes, he explained.

“From my perspective, the law enforcement mindset is investigatory,” he said.

“It’s a different analysis at some level, first before anything else, the military is looking to destroy the enemy,” he said. “The military is looking across the military aspects of terrain, and they’re accounting for what they know, what they don’t know and what they think.”

“The military approach is to figure out the possible source of threats and how to neutralize the threats,” he said.


Audino: Risk assessment must consider the cost of failure

“In a military operation, the Soldier conducts his risk assessment along with calculating what risks are acceptable and what risks are not acceptable,” the general said.

“We could very well find out that this Secret Service detail wasn’t resourced by the Secret Service commensurate with the threat.”

“Certainly,” he continued, “the assassination of Trump was an unacceptable risk, which meant all the planning had to consider the cost of failure.”

“The threat is significantly higher on this presidential candidate as a former president than virtually any other presidential candidate in history.”

“It’s hard to say much risk here is acceptable because the risk of failure is so high,” the general warned.

“I saw somebody just made a comment publicly that we were one inch away from a civil war–I mean, maybe that’s a stretch, but maybe it’s not.”

Neil W. McCabe is a Washington-based journalist and media consultant. He is a senior NCO in the Army Reserve and Iraq War veteran. Follow him on Twitter: @neilwmccabe2 GETTR/TruthSocial: @ReporterMcCabe

Eli Gold: Is the Pentagon’s Gaza Pier Just a New Way to Deliver Supplies to Hamas?

This article first appeared on RedState.com – https://redstate.com/mccabe/2024/05/17/eli-gold-is-the-pentagons-gaza-pier-just-a-new-way-to-deliver-supplies-to-hamas-n2174339

The founder and president of the Washington-based Gold Institute for International Strategies told RedState he is skeptical about whether the Pentagon’s maritime corridor for Gazan humanitarian aid will improve the conditions for the civilians living there.

We have all seen the videos of Hamas snipers sitting on top of the trucks—and as people are trying to get near the trucks, they shoot them,” said Eli M. Gold, who founded the Gold Institute five years ago after serving as a senior vice president at The London Center for Policy Research.

“What makes anyone believe this won’t happen just because the aid is coming across a pier that the United States built–because God knows the effectiveness of the United States’ humanitarian efforts in the Middle East,” Gold said.

The problem is that aid is coming in, but Hamas has diverted it to support their resistance to the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), instead of distributing it to the general population, he said.

“There’s no evidence to suggest that Hamas will not usurp this aid as they have done with all of the aid coming from Egypt, Israel, or anywhere else until now,” he said.

“In fact, we may have just opened up another way to deliver supplies to Hamas instead of getting it to the Palestinians in need,” Gold said.

“Once there, there is no security of the aid that’s coming across this pier, right?” he said.

Gold, who regularly advises members of Congress and their staffers, said no one is impressed when he talks to people in Washington about the Gaza pier.

“The response that I get from most people is another roll-your-eyes at this effort, which will provide no fruit whatsoever,” he said.

Cooper touts the Pentagon’s success in establishing maritime aid corridor to Gaza

The deputy commander of U.S. Central Command told reporters Thursday that the Pentagon has established its floating pier on the Gazan shore, opening up a new channel for U.S. aid to flow to that war-torn region.

“Let me be absolutely clear: The U.S. military’s only role in this effort is to provide our unique logistics capability to enable the delivery of lifesaving humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza by USAID and our international partners,” said Vice Admiral Bradley Cooper, a 1989 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland.

“International efforts are underway to increase the flow of humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza through all available routes, including by land, by air, and now by sea,” said Cooper.

“We are focused on flooding the zone with humanitarian assistance. This is the policy of our government,” he said.

The career surface warfare officer said the floating pier, officially called the Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore, or JLOTS, completes a triad of channels for flowing humanitarian support.

“To complement the provision of aid through land routes, which we know is the most efficient and effective pathway to move the necessary volume of assistance,” the admiral said. “We are pursuing multiple methods to deliver aid into Gaza, from the air and now from the sea.”

The admiral said the maritime corridor is ready to go, with ships standing off in the Mediterranean prepared to bring in the aid.

“I think we’re going to get about 500 tons in the next couple of days. That’s a pretty substantial amount, and it’s spread out over multiple ships right now,” Cooper said.

“We’ve got thousands of tons in the pipeline,” he said.

The floating pier, also known as a trident pier, is 1,600 feet long and is estimated to have cost $320 million.

In a May 7 Pentagon briefing, Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said the workhorse vessel bringing humanitarian aid to the floating pier is slated to be the 25-foot beam container ship Sagamore, whose route will be the 360-mile round-trip between Gaza and the logistics staging station at Cyprus.

Singh said Army soldiers assembled the floating pier at sea, although there were weather delays.

The humanitarian aid in Cyprus will travel from Cyprus to a temporary floating pier several miles off the coast of Gaza, Singh said. There, at sea, cargo will be unloaded from the Sagamore onto trucks that are onboard Army-owned landing craft utility ships, or LCUs, and logistic support vessels, or LSVs.

Singh said that the Army ships are set to travel toward Gaza, where they will meet up with the trident pier.

The trucks onboard the LCUs and LSVs will drive onto the pier and onto the shore of Gaza, where the humanitarian aid supplies can then be staged for delivery inside Gaza, she said.

Neil W. McCabe is a Washington-based journalist and media consultant. He is a senior NCO in the Army Reserve and Iraq War veteran. Follow him on Twitter: @neilwmccabe2 GETTR/TruthSocial: @ReporterMcCabe

“Making Europe Great Again”

In Bucharest, Romania, on 26-27 April 2024, politicians, think-tankers, businessmen, writers and influencers from across Europe, the United States, Canada and South America gathered for a conference on defending European values and freedom and restoring national self-confidence. In other words, “Making Europe Great Again”. It was organized by the Romanian conservative political party, Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), ahead of elections for the European Parliament to be held in all 27 countries of the European Union during the period 6-9 June 2024. Once elected, some 700 new members of the European Parliament (MEPs) will travel to Strasbourg on 16 July where most of them will join one of 8 trans-national political groups spanning a spectrum from Left to Right, from communist to extreme nationalist. The AUR aims to join the center-right group of European Conservatives & Reformists.

On 27 April, Geoffrey Van Orden CBE, Gold Institute Distinguished Fellow, Former British Army Brigadier-General, and leader of the British Conservatives in the European Parliament (before the United Kingdom left the EU in 2020), delivered a speech based on the following.

“30 years as a British Army officer taught me to keep my eye on the main aim, not to bring problems but solutions, and to understand the enemy. This also proved useful in my 20 years in the European Parliament, where I stood up for the sovereignty of our nations and against the drive for political integration, led the opposition to the EU’s misguided defense policy, demanded revitalization of NATO and rigorous counter-terrorism policies and sounded the alarm over mass immigration.

Today I see our values and our way of life are under threat and yet we are like rabbits caught in the car headlights, unable to make the right move. We face massive external and internal challenges, but we seem to have lost our way.

There is no doubt that the Covid pandemic inflicted the most enormous economic and social costs on all of us. There are worries about climate change and about conflict. But we have been through worse.

What is different is the widespread mood of pessimism and the undermining of confidence in our nations and our institutions, particularly among young people. This mood is spread by social media and fed by deliberate disinformation coming from Russia and its allies.

This is the backdrop to the most immediate and urgent threat that unfolded just a few miles from here with the Russian attack on the Ukraine, aiming to recreate the failed Soviet Union and that old Russian sphere of influence that embraced eastern Europe and the Black Sea. Romania’s commitment as a vital NATO ally was never more important.

Not only must we give every possible support to Ukraine in her defense against aggression, but the West needs to rearm – to upgrade national military capabilities, and strengthen the NATO alliance and our defense industries.

I am reassured that the United Kingdom is leading the way in Europe with the announcement, just a few days ago, of increasing defense expenditure and a massive replenishment of weapons for Ukraine.

Romania is enhancing its naval capabilities with four new surface combatants and three submarines for operations in the Black Sea. It is deepening its relationship with NATO and hosting NATO’s newest regional headquarters, Multinational Division Southeast.

Russia, with a GDP smaller than Britain’s, is single-minded in its objectives, seeking to recover its great power status and aggressively trying to restore its control of the post- Soviet space. Its people are used to hardship. The citizens of the democracies, meanwhile, seek a world of stability and just want peace, comfort and the good life.

Moscow’s strategy is two-fold. Firstly to convince Western public opinion to appease Russia in order to avoid conflict. Secondly, to separate Europe from the United States – to break the transatlantic alliance that has been our saviour and protection for over 80 years.

This is why I believe that EU Defense Policy, essentially a 70-year old French project, aiming to create an autonomous EU defense structure, separate from NATO – is not only wrong-headed but dangerous.

We are constantly being told that America is turning its back on Europe, pivoting to Asia, and that Donald Trump, in particular, wants to take America out of NATO. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Every American president since Eisenhower has wanted the Europeans to contribute more to their own security. Trump just speaks in more brash language. The fact is, he has been a major incentive for the Europeans to do more – two-thirds of NATO’s 32 members now spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. Ten years ago, only 3 NATO allies met that meagre target.

The United States now has more troops and equipment stationed in Europe than since the end of the Cold War. It is investing some $5 billion in the European Deterrence Initiative, and in the last few days, the US Congress has approved a $60 billion defense assistance program for Ukraine. It has deployed a rotational Brigade Combat Team to Romania in addition to air and air defense assets. That’s a massive, continuing, and reliable commitment to European security by the United States. And it’s what Russia fears most.

What we need across Europe is more military capability backed by political will, not fanciful EU structures.

The EU is not “Europe”.

The fact is EU defense policy has never been about more military capability – it is a political project to take forward European political integration. Brussels now wants the national veto on EU defense policy to be lifted and to introduce majority voting so that it can impose its political will. And it wants to insist on exclusive EU defense procurement, which by definition would complicate and exclude non-EU providers like the US and UK. You may recall Madeleine Albright’s warning way back in in 1998, against EU Defense Policy. She saw that it would lead to “diminution of NATO, discrimination and duplication” – the famous 3 “Ds”. Unfortunately all of them are hallmarks of EU Defense Policy. This needs to be opposed.

The transatlantic alliance needs to be strengthened, not chopped in half.

We also face an enemy within. The hard Left has never lost its loathing for our nations, for our great histories, culture and traditions, for all that has made us who we are. It will do all that it can to disrupt our economies, target vital industries, and create fear and despair.

We see it in action on our streets with the demonstrations ostensibly about Gaza. Noticeably absent is any condemnation of the Hamas terror organisation, any demands for the release of Israeli hostages, or even puzzlement at the abject failure of successive Palestinian leaders to deliver peace for their people.

And we have another problem. We are incapable, it seems, of securing our borders. Week after week, year after year, we allow countless thousands of strangers into our countries from cultures entirely different to our own. Their sheer numbers make integration into our societies increasingly difficult and now, with the promotion of multiculturalism, we seem to have given up on that possibility.

Last year, net migration to the UK was 672,000. In 2022, net migration to the EU countries was over 4 million.

The EU, wrapped in faulty human rights legislation, has been a massive magnet for migrants. Its mind-set is to continue to lay our countries open but to impose migrant quotas on its member states. Quite rightly, many EU countries have refused to accept this. But it is national governments that have been complacent over mass immigration or have sat at the EU Council table in Brussels and agreed on rules that merely encourage more migration.

At the same time, new laws have been introduced which give unprecedented protection to imported sensitivities and beliefs so that it is now hardly possible to criticize the arrival of people from entirely different cultures and backgrounds in case we are called racist or Islamophobic.

Not surprisingly we now have a generation of young people who know little about their own countries and are being indoctrinated into shame over our great national stories through social media, schools and universities as well as public institutions such as our art galleries and museums.

Let us be clear, most migrants come because they want to integrate into our societies, earn a living, and leave behind the system they grew up with. Many have made a great contribution to our societies and are proud of the country that has adopted them. But the pressure on so many to retain their old cultural baggage and loyalties is enormous.

We have to put a stop to mass immigration before it gets worse. Within the EU, national governments need to regain control over asylum and immigration policy. We need to change welfare and employment systems and human rights legislation that is a massive magnet for migrants. Those that enter our countries illegally or engage in serious criminality must be removed.

One of the biggest obstacles to an effective removal system across Europe has proved to be the European Convention on Human Rights – or rather its overreach and inflated interpretation. Its workings, along with the Refugee Convention, impact on all of our countries.

Neither the United States, nor the United Kingdom nor so many other countries, have any need of an external court in order to protect their very long-standing and positive record of human rights. International laws were drawn up in entirely different circumstances over 70 years ago, after the atrocities of the holocaust and with the communist iron curtain falling across eastern Europe. We now need a concerted effort to change these Conventions and their interpretation.

Increase in defense expenditure, enhancement of NATO, control of our borders and an end to mass immigration – these are policies that our center-right parties should campaign for.

15 years ago, I was instrumental in the creation of the European Conservatives & Reformists political group in the European Parliament. I want to see it again becoming the third largest group in the parliament and a decisive force. It is time the sensible, reasonable, center-right reasserted itself.

We must strengthen the cohesion of our nations, educate our young people about the reality of the threat we face, and carry out a moral rearmament to restore confidence and hope. Our democracy and prosperity, has been hard won over many centuries, but can be easily lost. It would take many generations to recover.

Europe – the United Kingdom, the Nordic countries, the Black Sea nations, the continental European countries – have much in common and have contributed so much to the world. We are a bastion of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. We have been an engine of global creativity and prosperity. Let us show that we are proud of who we are and that, along with our great kindred allies, the United States, Canada, and so many others, we have the resolve and the resources to protect our precious inheritance of freedom and to make a better world.”

A Year of Great Accomplishment.

As the year draws to a close, we at the Gold Institute continue to pause and reflect on our significant accomplishments of 2023. This year has been marked by our deep involvement in various influential activities and initiatives. As you continue to read, please consider making your year-end contribution to support the important work of our fellows. Click Here

In the wake of the Covid pandemic’s ongoing impact, we find ourselves facing challenges from aggressive, autocratic powers and international Islamist terrorism. Despite the West’s cohesive stance on issues like Ukraine, complexities arise as some allies maintain nuanced ties with Russia and Iran. These situations highlight the critical need for our sustained efforts in fostering resilience, optimism, and pride in the West’s contributions to humanity. It is imperative to defend the West, our allies, and our values against both internal and external threats across multiple fronts.

Our challenges are both domestic and international. The emergence of “Wokeism” has evolved into an attack on Western history, values, and achievements. The agitational Left, spurred by misinformation from foreign adversaries, is creating divisions and undermining confidence in our democratic institutions, particularly among the youth. The Gold Institute for International Strategy is committed to defending Western ideals through a variety of channels, including articles, television broadcasts, seminars, and discussions.

In the Middle East, our fellows have been instrumental in transforming existing and new media outlets into highly accurate sources, thereby significantly expanding their readership and viewership.

Politically, the strategic alliances established by our esteemed legislative fellows are key in upholding conservative values worldwide. Our events in the U.S., Europe, and the Middle East showcase our capability to create meaningful connections with conservative entities globally. Academically, the Institute plays vital advisory roles with leading universities in the Middle East and Europe, enhancing collaboration and fostering academic partnerships.

Our work with Chinese dissidents, aiming to expose and counter Xi Jinping’s and the CCP’s global ambitions, reflects our dedication to opposing autocratic regimes. Our advocacy in the European Parliament for a shift in the European Institutions’ approach towards China has been impactful. The EU’s recognition of the threat posed by China, as evident in the EU-China relations report, affirms our persistent efforts to address the challenges of the largest communist dictatorship.

Reflecting on these achievements, we acknowledge that our mission is ongoing. The support from individuals like yourself is crucial in addressing these pressing matters. Looking ahead to 2024, we aim to amplify our impact, forge new collaborations, and continue safeguarding the values fundamental to our societies.

We kindly ask for your continued support. Your contributions are vital to our research, education, and initiatives aimed at protecting the West and highlighting its positive global influence.

Please consider making a tax-deductible donation online at www.Goldiis.org or by simply clicking here.

Thank you for being an essential part of our community and for your commitment to this important cause.

We wish you a joyous holiday season and a prosperous New Year.

The Power Play: Addressing China’s Aggressive Moves in Sino-U.S. Relations

By: Isabella DeLuca, Media Associate

In recent years, China’s assertive actions and growing influence on the global stage have raised serious concerns about its hostility towards the United States. As China’s geopolitical influence begins to expand, so do our circumstances. 

FBI Director Christopher Wray said, “The greatest long-term threat to our nation’s information and intellectual property, and our economic vitality, is the counterintelligence and economic espionage threat from China.” He’s right, yet the FBI, the DOJ, the Department of Defense, and even the President of the United States have sat back and allowed China to run the show– behavior that would have never been tolerated under President Trump. 

In recent months and years, very alarming and aggressive actions have occurred on China’s behalf. China has sent a spy balloon over our airspace– conveniently over one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the U.S. and was able to gather intelligence from several sensitive American military sites. Thankfully, the U.S. military could shoot down the balloon after it was done spying. Despite us not having an extradition policy with China, they also have established police stations on American soil to “monitor Chinese citizens living in the United States.” Just last month, the CCP sent a Chinese warship to harass a U.S. Destroyer in the Taiwan Strait, and they have even threatened the use of nuclear weapons against the United States if we do not stay away from Taiwan. National security adviser Jake Sullivan said that over the last two years, at various points in the Ukraine crisis, when we have witnessed nuclear threats from the Russian side, we have known how to address them because we have decades of atomic risk reduction, strategic arms control and essential signaling experience with the Russians. We do not have this with China, which is unsettling and destabilizing.

Additionally, China has bought up 384,000 acres of farmland– including land in North Dakota that is just a stone’s throw away from some of our high-capability military bases; they have begun negotiations with Cuba to establish a new joint military training facility on the island– which is only eighty miles from Florida; they’ve been colonizing and continue to occupy parts of Africa and have established military bases there. China has also escalated the U.S. Tech War by banning Micron over “security and privacy concerns;” they have raided U.S. businesses in China and arrested workers; expanded their spy network in Mexico; and over the years, they have tenaciously increased their presence in Central America and the Caribbean through what is part of their Belt and Road Initiative (B.R.I.). The B.R.I. is a global infrastructure development strategy that seeks to connect China with the rest of the world– but in reality, it’s just a calculated expansion of their influence and an attempt by China to isolate Taiwan. Cuba is the most recent country to join China’s B.R.I., Jamaica and six other island nations in the Caribbean joined in 2019, and Costa Rica in 2018.

The list goes on and continues to grow exponentially. The CCP blatantly disregards and disrespects the United States and continues to mock us by violating American rules and privacy through their belligerent and aggressive behavior. 

China’s aggression is the direct consequence of electing a President whose son has done shady business dealings with them. The Hunter Biden laptop story is already criminal enough, but whatever blackmail the Chinese government has on the Biden crime family indicates that it blows the laptop story out of the water. In efforts to do damage control to prevent something that is most likely illegal and horrifying from surfacing, the Biden Administration has allowed China to do whatever it is they want. 

While some members of the Biden Administration have called for talks with China to establish peace and de-escalation, China is past the talking stage. With the amount of power and influence China has obtained in such a short time, we are at their mercy, not the other way around. 

Isabella DeLuca is a Media Associate at the Gold Institute for International Strategy.

Star News Network: Questions Swirl Around Law Enforcement’s Response to Uvalde Shooting; AP: SRO Driving Nearby, Not at Campus

This artcle orginally appeared in the Star News Network at https://thestarnewsnetwork.com/2022/05/27/questions-swirl-around-law-enforcements-response-to-uvalde-shooting-ap-sro-driving-nearby-not-at-campus/)

The director of the southern section of the Texas Department of Public Safety cut short his Thursday press conference as reporters shouted questions at him about why local law enforcement was ineffective for the hour after Tuesday’s spree shooting at Uvalde’s Robb Elementary School as gunshot victims languished inside. The crisis ended when Border Patrol Tactical officers arrived, engaged shooter Salvador Ramos, and killed him.

DPS Regional Director Victor Escalon: “One more, one more question, please.”

Reporter 1: “Eyewitnesses and some parents of the students were urging that the police go in while you were waiting for a tactical SWAT team. Even some parents were asking to borrow police armor, so they could launch a counterassault on the school.”

Escalon: I have heard that information, but we have not verified it yet.

Reporter 2: What haven’t you verified?

Escalon: “We have not verified that that is a true statement or not, or is it just a rumor out there – so, you got to understand, we’re getting a lot of information. We’re trying to track down what is true. We want to vet it.

That’s all I have for questions. Thank you so much, so look, we appreciate the questions.

Reporter 3: What were your officers doing between 11:44 and 12:44?

Escalon: I got you. Yes, sir. I have taken all of your questions into consideration. We will have updates.

Reporter 3: “We’ve been given a lot of bad information – why don’t you clear this all up? Why don’t you explain to us how it is that your officers were in there for an hour, and yet, no one was able to get inside that room? You guys said he was barricaded. Can you explain to us how he was barricaded, and why you could not breach that door?

Escalon told the reporters he would circle back as he closed the presser.

When the press conference opened, Escalon put out two shocking corrections to the previous official timeline of events: there was no initial confrontation with a school resource officer, and the door to the school was not locked.

The Associated Press reported that an anonymous source said the SRO, the armed guard responsible for the school’s security, was driving nearby and not on the grounds when Ramos entered the school.

Watch DPS Regional Director Escalon’s press conference remarks here.

Black: Access control of a building is the key to the building’s security

Marc Black, who retired from the New York City police department as a detective investigator, said that while many people focus on armed guards, he focuses on a building’s access.

“This is my background from a security and vulnerability perspective from physical security,” said Black, who now is a senior fellow at the Washington-based Gold Institute for International Strategies.

“At all these shootings, here’s the question, and nobody in the press ever asks this. What are the access controls for the school? And where were they deployed? That’s an extremely important question,” he said.

“The access control needs to be robust, and it needs to detect, deter, deny, and delay the threat, so it gives enough time for the good people to distance themselves from the bad guys. Were the doors locked?” the detective said.

“Physical security is done in layers. Did they have security personnel outside the school who can observe the school if there was anything that was suspicious?” Black asked.

“Everybody thinks of the resource officer and guns. If you have a resource officer who’s going for their gun, did the physical security somewhere fail? That’s the last line of defense,” he said.

As troubling as these items were, now the emotional center of gravity for the Robb School shooting is the lack of action by local law enforcement.

Although there were officers in the school coordinating the evacuation of students, faculty and administrators, according to the official timeline, two officers were shot and injured by the shooter soon after he entered the school, and afterward, neither they nor any other officers engaged the shooter until the tactical unit arrived.

The Associated Press spoke to one parent of one of the dead students, who said he demanded the police take action to save the children inside.

Javier Cazares, whose fourth-grade daughter, Jacklyn Cazares, was killed in the attack, said he raced to the school as the massacre unfolded. When he arrived, he saw two officers outside the school and about five others escorting students out of the building. But 15 or 20 minutes passed before the arrival of officers with shields, equipped to confront the gunman, he said.

As more parents flocked to the school, he and others pressed police to act, Cazares said. He heard about four gunshots before he and the others were ordered back to a parking lot.

“A lot of us were arguing with the police, ‘You all need to go in there. You all need to do your jobs.’ Their response was, ‘We can’t do our jobs because you guys are interfering,’” Cazares said.

Black said after the April 20, 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, the NYPD changed its procedure so that patrolmen no longer waited for officers from the department’s Emergency Services Unit (ESU).

“In New York City, if something like this happens, you don’t wait for ESU,” he said.

Black said all officers are trained in the same procedures so that if officers from different parts of the city arrive at the scene of an emergency, they can work together.

“It’d be like this. Maybe we all have the same training. I never met you. You never met me, but coincidentally, now we have this situation, but we’re all trained to the same standard, and we go in,” he said.

“What we’re trying to do there is isolate the scene or actually stop the threat.”

Evans: Often, victims survive gunshot wounds but bleed out without immediate medical attention

Craig Evans, the Northern Virginia Emergency Medical Services Council executive director, said it is surprising that many gunshot victims can survive in a mass casualty situation if they are attended to in time.

“The primary injuries that you can help correct, as a paramedic or on-the-scene initially, are severe bleeding, sucking chest wounds and airway compromises – depending on where the bullet goes,” said Evans, who retired from the City of Fairfax, Virginia, fire department in 2020.

“Immediate intervention makes the difference,” the retired firefighter said.

“If you want to survive a shooting, you don’t need a gun; you need a tourniquet and a 14-gauge needle, in case you have to do a chest decompression on yourself and some dressing, in case you have a sucking chest wound,” he said.

Victims with those injuries can survive, he said. “If those three things can be fixed immediately – but, an hour is a very long time.”

Evans said the Robb School shooting victims, especially the students, would not have much time to wait before they bled out from their wounds.

“The average 10-year-old weighs about 70 pounds so that they would have roughly 2.7 liters of blood,” he said.

“A 15 percent loss of that and you would be in severe shock – about 400-to-500 milliliters of blood – half a liter,” he said. “One 20-ounce bottle of soda is 591 milliliters, so theoretically, one bottle of soda is enough to put a 10-year-old into shock.”

Shock is when the body does not have enough blood to nourish tissue, and the body withholds blood from extremities to preserve the heart, brain and the core, he said.

All other gunshot injuries fall into one of two categories, Evans said.

“The majority of other injuries are either survivable, meaning you can go to the hospital the next day, or they are fatal,” said the member of the adjunct faculty of George Washington University’s Emergency Health Services Department.

“If you got shot in the arm, and it did not hit any major vessels? You could go to the hospital in two days, and you’d be fine,” he said. “If you got shot in the head, you could not survive it. If you got shot in the heart, you could not survive it.”

– – –

Neil W. McCabe is the national political editor of The Star News Network based in Washington. He is an Army Reserve public affairs NCO and an Iraq War veteran

On This Memorial Day…

As we prepare to observe this Memorial Day let us take a moment to remember all the members of our military who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect the freedoms we hold dear.

Let us take a moment to remember ALL our heroes who have sacrificed their lives while taking up the task to defend this nation from those who wish to destroy all it stands for.

Most importantly let us take a moment to thank God for those who continue to stand up and fight to protect our freedom, and to ask for his continued guidance and protection.

O God, our Father, Thou Searcher of human hearts, help us to draw near to Thee in sincerity and truth. May our religion be filled with gladness and may our worship of Thee be natural.

Strengthen and increase our admiration for honest dealing and clean thinking and suffer not our hatred of hypocrisy and pretense ever to diminish. Encourage us in our endeavor to live above the common level of life. Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be content with a half-truth when the whole can be won. Endow us with courage that is born of loyalty to all that is noble and worthy, that scorns to compromise with vice and injustice and knows no fear when truth and right are in jeopardy. Guard us against flippancy and irreverence in the sacred things of life. Grant us new ties of friendship and new opportunities of service. Kindle our hearts in fellowship with those of a cheerful countenance and soften our hearts with sympathy for those who sorrow and suffer. Help us to show forth in our lives the ideals to Thee and to our Country. All of which we ask in the name of the Great Friend and Master of all. – Amen (West Point Cadet Prayer)

May God bless us all,

Gold Institute for International Strategy is Pleased to Welcome Newest Distinguished Fellow Hon. William A Chatfield

The Gold Institute for International Strategy is pleased to welcome Honorable William A Chatfield as a distinguished Fellow.

William A. Chatfield became the 11th Director of Selective Service in November 2004, having been nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. He was directly responsible to the President for the management of the Selective Service System.

Mr. Chatfield, of Texas, brought to that position more than 25 years of experience working with the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.

He commenced public service as a staff member of the U.S. House of Representatives in the late Seventies. He then performed in several appointed positions of increasing responsibility in both terms of the Reagan Administration: Department of Defense; Civil Aeronautics Board; Office of Personnel Management; Consumer Product Safety Commission; Department of the Interior; and Interstate Commerce Commission.

From 1987 until his appointment with the Selective Service, he was engaged in governmental relations and public affairs consulting. After leaving public office at the end of the Bush Administration, Mr. Chatfield returned to consulting. The main focus of his practice was in the field of advancing effective healthcare protocols, specifically dealing with our nation’s wounded warrior population.

He is a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, with 34 years of active duty and reserve service.

Mr. Chatfield joined the Trump Presidential Transition Team in September of 2016. He was the policy lead on VA reform for candidate Trump and a leader on the transition effort for the president-elect at the Department of Veterans Affairs from election day to inaugural day. In the Trump administration, he served as a Department of Defense Fellow for the White House Liaison at the Office of the Secretary of Defense; working with the Undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness and the Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, providing liaison with the Defense Health Agency, focusing on the latest protocol for the effective treatment of the wounded warrior community.

In the Trump-Pence 2020 reelection effort, Mr. Chatfield worked with Election Operations, coordinating effective voter participation efforts and providing ballot security measures.

At present, in the private sector, he is advocating for the latest advancements in mental and physical treatment for our nation’s veteran community.

Israel Joins the Arab Club, With U.S. Sponsorship

(This article first appeared in Newsweek https://www.newsweek.com/israel-joins-arab-club-us-sponsorship-opinion-1628991)

By: Simone Ledeene, senior fellow and Victoria Coates

Last week, a laconic statement from the Department of Defense marked a tectonic shift in Middle East security cooperation, as the United States formally designated that Israel would now be part of the U.S Central Command (CENTCOM). President Donald Trump announced the proposed change on January 15, 2021, and while the escalation of violence in Gaza this spring seemed to put the designation in some jeopardy, it went into effect on September 1, 2021. The initiative to move Israel into CENTCOM is a direct result of the Trump administration-led Abraham Accords normalization agreements between the United States, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, signed one year ago today on the South Lawn of the White House.

CENTCOM got its name because the Middle East is literally located in the middle of everything. Israel is the most central point in that centrally located region, sharing as it does a maritime boundary with a European country (Cyprus) and a border with an African country (Egypt), as well as boasting Asian neighbors such as Jordan. In the wake of the Abraham Accords and the resultant burgeoning economic and cultural ties among the signatories, the timing is now ideal to develop a similar regional security relationship. This relationship would expand cooperation and improve Israel Defense Forces (IDF) integration with U.S. and partner forces throughout the region. It would also help CENTCOM promote a more holistic and inclusive regional security framework. There would be opportunities to conduct joint military exercises that include the IDF, which would indirectly provide Israel the occasion to communicate with countries that have yet to sign normalization agreements. Additionally, Israel would now be able to assign IDF liaison officers to CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa—and, hopefully in the future, to subordinate headquarters across the region.

As events in the Middle East crashed into the American consciousness due to the Iran and Afghanistan crises in 1979, President Jimmy Carter established the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (JTF) as a response mechanism for rapidly unfolding events. In 1983, under President Reagan, that JTF became CENTCOM. Its area of operation runs from the Pakistani border with India to Egypt’s border with Libya. U.S. military regional combatant commands, including CENTCOM, are responsible for the deployment, support and operational employment of U.S. forces in their areas of responsibility, as well as for developing military relationships with allies and partners in their respective regions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, US President Donald Trump, Bahrain Foreign Minister Abdullatif al-Zayani, and UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan pose from the Truman Balcony at the White House after they participated in the signing of the Abraham Accords where the countries of Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates recognize Israel, in Washington, DC, September 15, 2020.

In the course of the 1983 reorganization, Israel, Syria and Lebanon remained part of the European Command (EUCOM), which was established after World War II. At the time, placing Israel under EUCOM made some sense. Israel had existed for just 35 years and had formal diplomatic relations—chilly ones, at that—with only one Arab country: Egypt. All the others refused to recognize or maintain formal ties with the Jewish state. Memories of oil embargoes and the 1970s-era Arab boycott were still fresh, and it seemed only prudent to consider “diplomatic sensitivities” by making CENTCOM the U.S. military’s interface with the Arab world. EUCOM provided assistance to the IDF and conducted joint exercises and contingency operations with the IDF and America’s NATO allies.

In 2004, however, President George W. Bush moved Syria and Lebanon to CENTCOM, and Israel alone among the countries of the region remained in EUCOM. This encouraged the unfortunate perception that Israel is somehow separate, or different, from the rest of the Middle East. Major threats to Israel were, and are, within CENTCOM’s boundaries—specifically, those from Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Israel’s airspace is also under CENTCOM’s area of operations, including assets involved in detection, suppression and prevention of missile threats in the broader Middle East. The situation has become increasingly awkward, as the European Union is now significantly more anti-Israel than the Arab world; during the 2014 escalation of violence in Gaza, for example, EU complaints about Israel and advocacy for the Palestinians complicated an already-thorny situation. Given that Israel now has full relations with four Arab countries and is developing additional relationships in the region, the Trump administration concluded it was no longer necessary to maintain the fiction that Israel is somehow in Europe. It therefore initiated the process that came to fulfillment on September 1, 2021.

The consequences of President Joe Biden‘s recent chaotic and catastrophic surrender in Afghanistan, which is also part of CENTCOM’s area of operations, may take a generation to fully comprehend. But even in this bleak context, the restructuring of CENTCOM to incorporate Israel stands out as a beacon of hope that, thanks to the Abraham Accords, American national security interests in the Middle East may yet be salvaged—and, if properly supported and encouraged, even strengthened in the future.

Victoria Coates is a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and a former deputy national security advisor for the Middle East and North Africa on the National Security Council staff.

Simone Ledeen is a senior fellow at the Gold Institute for International Policy and a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East.

Exclusive: Erik Prince Blames Afghanistan Debacle on ‘Cosplay National Security Apparatus’ that Believes ‘Their Own BS’

(The article first appeared in the Tennessee Star: https://tennesseestar.com/2021/08/15/exclusive-erik-prince-blames-afghanistan-debacle-on-cosplay-national-security-apparatus-that-believes-their-own-bs/)

By: Neil W. McCabe, Media Fellow

The Founder of the Blackwater private security firm and the author of a comprehensive plan to save Afghanistan by shifting the country’s security to private contractors and away from the American military told The Star News Network on Sunday he warned U.S. diplomats the government of President Ashraf Ghani would fall before Labor Day.

“I told a number of ambassadors in the region there; they should expect a collapse of Kabul by Labor Day, and I said that back in April, based on when the U.S. air pressure, when the Air Force really stopped bombing, when that threat largely disappears, then the Taliban would be able to group and mass as they have done, and then they start blowing up cities,” said Erik Prince, the Navy SEAL veteran and national security entrepreneur.

“It’s a very predictable outcome that all these smart people in the military didn’t pass that kind of information off the chain of command so that the president even last month makes as dumb a statement as he does,” Prince said.

“We have a cosplay national security apparatus that sits and talks to itself into believing their own B.S., and sadly, the Taliban are feeding into us at the end of the bayonet right now,” he said. The term “cosplay” is defined by dictionary.com as “the art or practice of wearing costumes to portray characters from fiction, especially manga, animation, and science fiction.”

“This is not rocket science, but it’s a failure of imagination,” he said.

“It’s a failure to look at history to see what’s worked by our conventional military leadership and utter an abysmal failure,” he said. “The Afghan army has lasted a couple of weeks. The government built by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan lasted four years after the Russians pulled their forces out, four years not two weeks.”

Prince said once Taliban forces started rolling up provincial capitals, they could not be stopped by the Afghanistan government.

“The continued Taliban victories have certainly given them a very key element in the military success, and that’s momentum,” he said. “It certainly caused a lot of paralysis. When that momentum causes fear amongst the defending population and a few links in their chain suddenly disappear, they lack the resiliency, and so it all goes apart quickly.”

Kabul falling as it did will have a long-term negative impact on America’s reputation, he said.

“It will have second and third-order effects because everyone that thinks that they’re an ally of the United States is going to look at us today,” he said. “The United States walked out of there, like a bad one-night stand, and: ‘They just left us hanging.’”

In 2017, Prince presented a comprehensive plan to senior military and diplomatic leaders in Washington, which would have private military contractor personnel take over the Pentagon’s advise and assist mission with Afghanistan’s security forces.

The plan was rejected in favor of a mini-surge of 8,400 additional troops to Afghanistan proposed by National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Harold R. “H.R.” McMaster and backed by Vice President Michael R. Pence approved by President Donald J. Trump in August 2017.

According to Politico, McMaster rehearsed his presentation with Pence while blocking Prince from meeting Trump to make his pitch.

The purpose of the McMaster plan was to create a permissive environment for U.S. forces to leave the country in the hands of Afghanistan’s security forces as Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters continued to resist the U.S.-backed regime.

Despite the machinations of McMaster, Prince said he was able to get his plan to Trump and others, but he could not overcome the national security bureaucracy’s inertia.

“What I recommended in very clear written terms to President Trump, to H.R. McMaster, to Mattis, to the CIA, was a specific plan to give a, call it a skeletal structure support, to the Afghan forces to give them some resiliency they could depend on at a very cheap price compared to the cost of all the U.S. active-duty presence and very, very expensive logistics,” he said.

The three elements of the Prince Plan: Mentors, Air Power and Logistics

Prince said the first part of his plan was to break the cycle of constantly changing U.S. military partners assigned to work with Afghanistan’s military units with teams of military veteran contractor personnel attached to each Afghanistan battalion for three to four years.

The Hillsdale College graduate said he based his plan on the lessons learned from the successful long-term mentorship of U.S. special operations personnel provided to Afghanistan’s commandos.

“The only part of the Afghan army that’s demonstrated a willingness and ability to fight is the Afghan commandos because they were trained by the U.S. special operations counterparts, and that worked,” he said.

“All I was doing in taking the mentor model to the Afghan army is replicating what’s worked with the Afghan commandos, that being attaching, would have been 36 men mentor teams so that they had enough so that whenever that Afghan battalion was deployed somewhere, there would be enough,” Prince said.

“These mentors would make sure the key enablers were provided leadership, intelligence, communications, medical, and logistics expertise,” he said.

Because of the constant nine-month rotation of U.S. military units and personnel, he said there is no follow-up over time and no time for proper bonding between the mentors and their charges.

In effect, he said that each rotation had become its own new war with new people and new tactics.

“We’ve had 33 rotations at least,” said the former SEAL officer, who left the service upon the 1995 passing of his father Edgar D. Prince, an engineer and industrialist, whose businesses included die-cast machines and auto parts.

“I would have contracted guys that would have gone and stayed in the same area for three and four years,” he said. “They go in for 90 days, come home for 30. Back in for 60, home for 30.”

The goal is to create tactical stability, said the author of “Civilian Warriors: The Inside Story of Blackwater and the Unsung Heroes of the War on Terror” about his groundbreaking creation of the private security industry.

“Always rotating to the same unit in the same terrain, so they get to know the area, Prince said. “They know who’s good, who’s bad, but the Afghan unit members see them, trust them, brothers in arms,” and that would have, I say with 100 percent assurance, the mentors, in place, attached, living with, training with, and fighting alongside that entire Afghan conventional army, would have greatly enhanced their willingness to fight, especially when the second part is provided and that being air power.”

Prince: Airpower means tactical support, medical support to fighters on the ground

“I would have provided 90 aircraft. I used to have 50 of my own aircraft in Afghanistan doing support for the U.S. forces,” said the native of Holland, Michigan. “Doing food, and fuel, and movement, and medevac, surveillance, et cetera, providing those aircraft that show up reliably with no excuse.”

Prince said as a private company with a no-fail contract; he could have provided air support for the entire country.

“We would have provided close air support on 30-minute notice from anywhere, from the bases we would have staged, to anywhere in the country, so from a maximum of 30 minutes lag time between someone calling for help, having aircraft with the ordinance, overhead and ready to go,” he said.

Prince said he would train each of the private contractor military mentors as joint terminal attack controllers, or JTAC, technicians capable of talking to aircrews with targeting information and other data from the ground.

One of the reasons the regular Afghanistan soldier was under-motivated to fight was the lack of battlefield casualty care, he said.

“To one year, three years, 10 years ago, you were seven times as likely to die if you’re an Afghan that got wounded,” Prince said.

“Afghan soldiers just lost confidence in the whole system because their supply wasn’t coming, their pay wouldn’t show up, they wouldn’t have food, and worst of all, they wouldn’t get the ammunition,” he said.

A tragic example of this was the Taliban’s June 16 ambush and massacre of 24 Afghanistan commandos and five local police officers in Farah Province. No aircraft were sent to help, rescue, resupply or medevac the men as the insurgents pinned them down.

“They were slaughtered after running out of ammunition,” he said. “They begged and pleaded, calling for help, calling Kabul news media, T.V. stations, begging for someone to help them, and no one came. That’s how you destroy the morale of an army, and that’s why it collapsed so quickly. This is really basic stuff.”

Prince Plan would have professionalized military logistics in Afghanistan

“The third part of the deal is combat logistics support,” he said.

He said that part of that would be using modern bookkeeping to find the ghost soldiers and take them off the books.

“You heard rumblings about the massive theft of pay, with the ghost soldiers, like a 100,000-plus, completely named, listed on the employment rolls, but not really people showing there, because the senior officers were skimming the pay, all the way up to Ghani,” he said.

“The third part of this is a combat logistics element to keep the food, fuel, parts, ammunition flowing reliably, and as low a corruption loss as possible, certainly different than what’s been done over the last 20 years,” he said.

“The great error of the U.S. is thinking that they were going to empower Afghans and dropping these many resources into a 90 percent illiterate country with endemic corruption,” he said.

Prince said American bureaucrats failed to set up left and right flanks to corral the corruption; then, the American officials gave up on corruption altogether.

“I guess the laziness caused people to say: ‘Oh yeah, they can handle the whole thing. Just turn it over to them, give them the checkbook,’” he said. “The reality would have said: No, we’re going to be very, very limited, defined things, and we can reevaluate that, and we can do this on a cheap, small footprint approach and not the very big, expensive, DOD approach that we had the last 20 years.”

Prince Plan based on the East India Company model

Prince said he modeled his plan on England’s East India Company’s success and its stewardship of India. It developed its commercial interests in India with a concession from the crown.

“Everything I laid out in this plan is based on 250 years of successful security operations by the East India Company in the South Asian continent, building local units with a few expats attached, like a 5 percent expat ratio,” he said.

Most Americans only know the East India Company as the company which owned the ship full of tea attacked by the Sons of Liberty in the 1773 Boston Tea Party. Yet, despite this chapter of the American Revolution, many colonial leaders supported a proposal to the British Parliament to give the American colonies the same independence inside the British imperial system the East India Company enjoyed.

In fact, the American flag is a direct lift from the flag of the East India Company.

Prince Plan would have fostered the development of natural resources

Prince said the linchpin of his plan was the development of Afghanistan’s natural resources made possible because of his plan’s security.

According to a 2011 U.S. Geological Survey report, Afghanistan’s natural resources include gold and strategic metals, such as copper, chromium, lead, zinc, and cobalt.

The Navy SEAL veteran said there is also oil.

“All the fuel, diesel fuel that the U.S. burned in Afghanistan, largely came from Greece on a big DLA, Defense Logistics Agency contract,” he said.

“It came down the Suez by boat, through the Red Sea, all the way around to Karachi, and then it got on a truck and trucked all the way up into Afghanistan with a massive tolling regime in place,” he said.

“There’s definitely an investigation that should be done there, as to all the people that got paid for moving that fuel. That’s why the fully-loaded costs per gallon of fuel for U.S. forces in Afghanistan were $250 per gallon,” he said.

“The disgusting thing is the Russians actually drilled oil fields in the north of Afghanistan,” he said.

“They explored, they drilled, they proved, and then they properly cemented the wells when they left,” Prince said. “All those wells are still sitting there and the U.S. military, or a private operator, could have drilled it, put it in production, slapped a $100 million refinery there and provided all the hydrocarbons needed for the entire country, including the U.S. military, for a tiny fraction. That thing would have paid for itself in probably four months, 20 years ago, and would have provided significant employment and other secondary electrical applications.”

The businessman said he knew a local Afghani who tried to reboot the old Russian wells.

“An Afghan friend of mine was the local partner, and he was exasperated because he could never get the right people to engage on it,” he said. “Ghani and Karzai were so damn corrupt that the other subsequent licensing was always held up because it was always asking for a greater bribe.”

Afghanistan’s oil resources are not widely known. Still, its copper deposits are both well-known and readily exploited—and the mining jobs would have pulled Taliban fighters off the battlefield, he said.

“Another example is Mes Aynak that is basically a mountain of copper; it’s about 50 kilometers south of Kabul,” he said.

“They have been mining copper there for more than a thousand years, and you could have put that in production and employed 10,000 Taliban because the Taliban was paying around $10 a day,” he said.

“You could have paid them $12 a day, given them picks and shovels, mined copper profitably, and sucked an entire infantry division’s worth of Taliban manpower away from them.”

– – –

Neil W. McCabe is a Media Fellow at the Washington D.C. based Gold Institute for International Strategy, a foriegn policy and national security think-tank. He is a Washington-based national political reporter for The Tennessee Star and The Star News Network. In addition to the Star Newspaper, he has covered the White House, Capitol Hill and national politics for One America News, Breitbart, Human Events and Townhall. Before coming to Washington, he was a staff reporter for Boston’s Catholic paper, The Pilot, and the editor of two Boston-area community papers, The Somerville News and The Alewife. McCabe is a public affairs NCO in the Army Reserve and he deployed for 15 months to Iraq as a combat historian.
Photo “Erik Prince” by Miller Center CC2.0